|
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've been thinking about why Christianity would be more apt to expand. Only things I can come up with are that they have canonical scripture in the Bible, which is much more enduring and portable than elaborate rites and oral traditions. Islam has the Koran as well. In my searches into polytheism I haven't found texts comparable to those two, except maybe the Vedas of Hinduism. And the second reason that comes to my mind is the glorification of martyrdom inherent in Christianity especially. I'd imagine that going to foreign peoples and trying to persuade them to give up their gods to worship yours would often be a dangerous if not suicidal endeavor.
|
On October 05 2016 07:57 Jerubaal wrote:
Why are you like this.
Everything is understanding and communication. Truthfully the major error is that most learning is bound up in economic phenomenon. Years ago I got a degree in economics, and I didn't get anything out of it.
Now looking back I think it's a godsend that I studied something that seemed like bullshit at the time. It's odd how many things are a sort of sacred rite. Like getting a job at Domino's pizza might be a sacred rite (it isn't but it could be). And you look at the quantity of people who might have a worldview like this.
On the other hand no one is free to operate without the confines of something. Like why can't I be a millionaire (WELL I AM A MILLIONAIRE ACTUALLY HAHHAHAHAH) but you don't understand my point perhaps. So I might take this opportunity to highlight the odd fact of "dancing in quicksand".
|
On October 05 2016 13:08 Starlightsun 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 is it about Christianity that allowed it to expand beyond its ethnic and cultural borders? I've been thinking about why Christianity would be more apt to expand. Only things I can come up with are that they have canonical scripture in the Bible, which is much more enduring and portable than elaborate rites and oral traditions. Islam has the Koran as well. In my searches into polytheism I haven't found texts comparable to those two, except maybe the Vedas of Hinduism. And the second reason that comes to my mind is the glorification of martyrdom inherent in Christianity especially. I'd imagine that going to foreign peoples and trying to persuade them to give up their gods to worship yours would often be a dangerous if not suicidal endeavor.
Well, I think it's not as sucidal as you would think. As far as I know, the spread of Christianity was pretty peaceful. Only the Romans really persecuted them, and that was mostly because they perceived them as a threat to order, the Roman cult being a big part of their culture. It wasn't until they got to India, China and Japan that regular genocide really became a thing (A thing that is still going on, I might add.) On that note, there's a movie coming out soon, that supposedly took Scorsese 20 years to put together, about Jesuits in Japan, starring Liam Neeson, Ciaran Hinds, Andrew Garfield and Adam Driver, so I'm looking forward to that.
Here's my Junior Sociologist theory of religion:
Stage 1: Cults center around one god. Worship is largely transactional- I give you something (sacrifices), you give me something (good crops). Gods used to explain isolated phenomena. Gods very local. Not that their worship is local, but that they are considered to inhabit a certain area. Iffy connection to a moral code. Examples: Ancient Semitic and Near/Middle East "demons", Baal, Moloch, Astarte.
Yuuuuuge leap.
Stage 2: Fully formed pantheons. Somewhat developed cosmology. No metaphysics. Gods are not the creators of the universe, though, and only reign over one part of creation. Religious activities still focus around sacrifice and rites. Connected to a moral code but the gods are not the creators of it. Examples: Greek and Roman pantheon.
Stage 3: Fully formed pantheon. Extensive (if sometimes vague) cosmology. Metaphysics. Gods are considered to be the frontispiece to a hidden cosmic unity. Activity still has rites but there is emphasis on the inner life. Examples: Hinduism
Stage 4 (Basically Christianity): The end of myth. All of the place holders and fables are removed for -what is considered- the truth. Fully developed cosmology. Fused metaphysics and morality.
I couldn't decide where to put Judaism. The Hebrews were not as advanced a culture as the Greeks or Hindus (although, they certainly got there eventually), but they had a developed cosmology, a metaphysics and an advanced moral code that was also rooted in their metaphysics. They also made the advancement that their God was a god of the blood and not of the land that presaged Christianity.
|
United States15275 Posts
Everytime you use yuge, I remember that Freakazoid episode about the Saturday morning cartoon.
|
Interesting theory Jerubaal. I don't feel certain that the development is quite so linear, with Christianity being the apotheosis of religion. Regarding the end of myth in particular, that was one of the emperor Julian's (surviving) arguments: why do the Christians reject Homer and Hesiod as myth, yet believe the many fantastic tales of both the old and new Testaments? That hardening of belief in myths as literal truths might be considered a step backwards in development, not a higher stage. And it seems that metaphysics and morality had already been infused into Greek religion by the time of Plato and Aristotle. I don't know, I'm probably getting stuff wrong. But do you think between your stage 3 and 4 is the distinction between mono- and polytheism?
|
On October 03 2016 16:34 Korakys wrote:
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.
That is an interesting observation that while societies have often gone from mono- to polytheism, there are few if any examples of the opposite. Maybe it is directly tied to your first point about administration of multi-ethnic empires.
|
On October 04 2016 19:38 Yurie wrote:
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.
So the different deities were kind of like what rival political factions are today? I wonder then why the transition from autocratic rulership to democracy would not see a return to polytheism? It's an interesting way to look at it for sure.
|
On October 07 2016 03:47 Starlightsun wrote:
Interesting theory Jerubaal. I don't feel certain that the development is quite so linear, with Christianity being the apotheosis of religion. Regarding the end of myth in particular, that was one of the emperor Julian's (surviving) arguments: why do the Christians reject Homer and Hesiod as myth, yet believe the many fantastic tales of both the old and new Testaments? That hardening of belief in myths as literal truths might be considered a step backwards in development, not a higher stage. And it seems that metaphysics and morality had already been infused into Greek religion by the time of Plato and Aristotle. I don't know, I'm probably getting stuff wrong. But do you think between your stage 3 and 4 is the distinction between mono- and polytheism?
It's not linear. I think the mistake the good gentleman in the blog above us, like so many Western critics, makes is in thinking that "all religions are basically the same". That's as true as saying a Roman bridge is basically the same as a Chinese bridge. I was trying to get across is that these religions are pretty different in form and function.
As for Julian, I think we should think about what is meant by myth. A myth is a kind of a facade, really. It's an explanation, but there is surmised to be a greater truth behind it. Of course, we don't know exactly what they were thinking, but I'm not sure whether the viewers of these plays really believed that there was a volcanic eruption because Typhon was having a temper tantrum. Who knows, maybe they'll talk about those weirdos in the 20th century who believed walking under a ladder was bad luck. Anyway, you don't really see very many of these credulous stories in the Bible. The rainbow story is the only one I can think of off the top of my head.
I think even the Greeks (and more explicitly the Hindus) recognized that their religion was deficient. Plato spit acid at Homer and posed several questions that were pretty problematic for their current religious conception. Even if we just look at the cosmology, the Greeks and Hindus both say that their pantheon is not the whole of creation.
As for "a step back", I would say that we should always go after the final truth, don't you think?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
