Polytheism vs Monotheism

[Michael]

Not so much polytheism -vs- monotheism BUT I was thinking of the polytheists in the Roman Empire. If one were to go to the large multicultural cities, say like, Alexandria. There you would find Temples to various Gods. All working to serve YOU. You didn't serve them, not really, they served you. They tried to get your patronage. This means people go about their daily lives, working and economically prospering without much worrying about the Gods. When they do go to a Temple, it's usually because they want a blessing. They pay their bit, get some magic water, and say their prayer off they go.

Compare this with monotheism. Where YOU serve the God. All day long ... you observe your penance, you only eat what the God says is OK to eat, you worry and pray (in some cases this too is mandatory), and you hope the God likes you well enough and doesn't send you to hell ... in essence YOU'RE the slave to the God. You're a mental slave to the priests of this God.



Think about the different roles these two different religous classes are gong to occupy in society - it's two very different situations. In one they are a servant in the other they are your master.

And, this is what we see in theocratic societies. Even today.



Anyway, it was just a thought I had. It seems to me, that this is another example of where polytheism fits in better with society.



Michael II

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

You minimize the serving of polygods & omit worship. It does seem tho to be much more with monogods.
Another thing I always pondered: Everything we know of we see more than 1. How can people think god would be an exception?

[Michael]

Except self :) maybe that's it :p

I think there is a similarity b/w modern Japanese Shinto religion and polyGods in the Roman Empire. In that, the Gods serve you.

Funny that, perhaps Japan, being a small set of island, as a nation, didn't have the resources to indulge in monotheism. The Japanese are a pragmatic people.

Michael

[one_raven]

I'm not quite as certainas you that polytheists did/do not serve their gods.
As I understood it, the Romans feared the wrath of some of their gods and regularly made sacrifices and offerings to please them and win their favor.

[Michael]

Think of a gladiatorial match, a triumphant, etc.. yes, they begin with a sacrifice to the gods (which they then probably roasted and ate). Done and done.

Now think about a city like Alexandria, most people weren't even Citizens and certainly not Romans. They were inundated with many new gods, new priests, new temples, all working the crowd for their patronage. THAT was the magic of the times.

They worked for the people.
In monotheism the people work for them.

[Michael]

Perhaps this is why, post Christiandom, Europeans once again revitalized and have the freed up resources to rapidly progress - much like at the time of the Roman empire?

Anyway, it's just a thought that popped into my mind on way to the toilet. . . . .

[Michael]

I think it may have some merit and I've never heard of it before. anyone ever hear of it. Maybe we can make a new branch of study. Religious Economics as a rigorous discipline. Could be an interesting PhD topic..... I expect an authorship :)

[one_raven]

Anyway, it's just a thought that popped into my mind on way to the toilet. . . . .

You changed that. :)

[Michael]

Oh, did I mention I had a couple...6 or 8 beers tonight :D

[one_raven]

Oh, did I mention I had a couple...6 or 8 beers tonight :D

Now it make more sense. :D

[one_raven]

Not so much polytheism -vs- monotheism

That would be fun though, wouldn't it?
Durga and Kali tag-teaming Yahweh?

[one_raven]

My money would be on Durga and Kali.

What about Ahura Mazda vs Loki and Odin?

[BlueMoose]

Or how about Wäinämöinen, he did bring back The Sun from the Underworld, so at least all
the Sun worshippers are debt to him big time ;)

[Mr. Hamtastic]

This is silly. In monotheistic christianity, God has set limits on us to help us, not enslave us. We ask things of him, and if they are part of his plan, he will grant them. If not, the answer will be no.

Are you suggesting that the Roman "God" Nero did not basically enslave his people? That the Greek deity Zeus somehow acted to benefit his followers? If so, how so?

[Simon Anders]

This is silly. In monotheistic christianity, God has set limits on us to help us, not enslave us. We ask things of him, and if they are part of his plan, he will grant them. If not, the answer will be no.

Are you suggesting that the Roman "God" Nero did not basically enslave his people? That the Greek deity Zeus somehow acted to benefit his followers? If so, how so?

I think there is a fundamental difference between the monotheisms and the multi-god systems. In the monotheisms you tend to be taught that part of you is bad and that God is perfect and you must be a kind of surrogate God in relation to the bad portions of yourself. In the pagan systems the gods themselves were less than perfect, had foibles and did naughty and childish shit.

so the relationship with them did not involve the kinds of self-hatred and self-imprisonment demanded in the monotheisms.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

It appears to me that having imperfect Gods leads to having more thoroughly corrupt followers, especially if those followers are zealous. I do agree with your distinction, however. The guilt from being less than what God wants can be quite taxing at times. I'm not sure what you mean by self-imprisonment. I wasn't aware that that was demanded, then again, I am not a scholar of world religion by any means.

[Simon Anders]

It appears to me that having imperfect Gods leads to having more thoroughly corrupt followers, especially if those followers are zealous. I do agree with your distinction, however. The guilt from being less than what God wants can be quite taxing at times. I'm not sure what you mean by self-imprisonment. I wasn't aware that that was demanded, then again, I am not a scholar of world religion by any means.My sense is that corruption seems pretty widely spread in all big religions. As far as self imprisonment...
generally speaking sexual feelings and urge
certain emotions
resistance to authority
certain kinds of questioning
and freedom of action in general
are to be 'kept inside'.

One becomes a kind of by proxy jailer for oneself or portions therein.

(me no scholar either, by the way. decent amount of life experience and reading and conversing and visiting and trying out)

[S.A.M.]

Not so much polytheism -vs- monotheism BUT I was thinking of the polytheists in the Roman Empire. If one were to go to the large multicultural cities, say like, Alexandria. There you would find Temples to various Gods. All working to serve YOU. You didn't serve them, not really, they served you. They tried to get your patronage. This means people go about their daily lives, working and economically prospering without much worrying about the Gods. When they do go to a Temple, it's usually because they want a blessing. They pay their bit, get some magic water, and say their prayer off they go.

Compare this with monotheism. Where YOU serve the God. All day long ... you observe your penance, you only eat what the God says is OK to eat, you worry and pray (in some cases this too is mandatory), and you hope the God likes you well enough and doesn't send you to hell ... in essence YOU'RE the slave to the God. You're a mental slave to the priests of this God.



Think about the different roles these two different religous classes are gong to occupy in society - it's two very different situations. In one they are a servant in the other they are your master.

And, this is what we see in theocratic societies. Even today.



Anyway, it was just a thought I had. It seems to me, that this is another example of where polytheism fits in better with society.



Michael II

So you think polytheists like the Greeks and Romans were more advanced than the Christians, Muslims and Jews?

[Medicine*Woman]

Not so much polytheism -vs- monotheism BUT I was thinking of the polytheists in the Roman Empire. If one were to go to the large multicultural cities, say like, Alexandria. There you would find Temples to various Gods. All working to serve YOU. You didn't serve them, not really, they served you. They tried to get your patronage. This means people go about their daily lives, working and economically prospering without much worrying about the Gods. When they do go to a Temple, it's usually because they want a blessing. They pay their bit, get some magic water, and say their prayer off they go.

Compare this with monotheism. Where YOU serve the God. All day long ... you observe your penance, you only eat what the God says is OK to eat, you worry and pray (in some cases this too is mandatory), and you hope the God likes you well enough and doesn't send you to hell ... in essence YOU'RE the slave to the God. You're a mental slave to the priests of this God.

Think about the different roles these two different religous classes are gong to occupy in society - it's two very different situations. In one they are a servant in the other they are your master.

And, this is what we see in theocratic societies. Even today.

Anyway, it was just a thought I had. It seems to me, that this is another example of where polytheism fits in better with society.

*************
M*W: Thanks for the insightful explanation of the purposes of gods.

[Cellar_Door]

Anyway, it was just a thought I had. It seems to me, that this is another example of where polytheism fits in better with society.

An individual either believes something or they don't; you can't force polytheism on modern society because you think it is less restricting. If you are a true monotheist, then you believe that you are praying/observing important dates/fasting/wearing a headscarf because it is what God intends for you to do. Religion loses the little purpose it has if it is customised to fit the follower.

[one_raven]

An individual either believes something or they don't; you can't force polytheism on modern society because you think it is less restricting. If you are a true monotheist, then you believe that you are praying/observing important dates/fasting/wearing a headscarf because it is what God intends for you to do. Religion loses the little purpose it has if it is customised to fit the follower.
I disagree completely.
First of all, people believe something because they are taught to believe it or coerced into it - narly universally.
Secondly, of course religion is custom fit to the follower - why do you think there are over 30,000 different Christian sects? Why do you think so many people use teh same book to justify VASTLY different beliefs?

[lightgigantic]

Not so much polytheism -vs- monotheism BUT I was thinking of the polytheists in the Roman Empire. If one were to go to the large multicultural cities, say like, Alexandria. There you would find Temples to various Gods. All working to serve YOU. You didn't serve them, not really, they served you. They tried to get your patronage. This means people go about their daily lives, working and economically prospering without much worrying about the Gods. When they do go to a Temple, it's usually because they want a blessing. They pay their bit, get some magic water, and say their prayer off they go.

Compare this with monotheism. Where YOU serve the God. All day long ... you observe your penance, you only eat what the God says is OK to eat, you worry and pray (in some cases this too is mandatory), and you hope the God likes you well enough and doesn't send you to hell ... in essence YOU'RE the slave to the God. You're a mental slave to the priests of this God.



Think about the different roles these two different religous classes are gong to occupy in society - it's two very different situations. In one they are a servant in the other they are your master.

And, this is what we see in theocratic societies. Even today.



Anyway, it was just a thought I had. It seems to me, that this is another example of where polytheism fits in better with society.



Michael II

hence the problem with polytheism (or even materialistic renditions of monotheistic traditions) is what sort of value can a master have if they are completely at the whim of death, old age and disease ...?

:shrug:

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Except self :) maybe that's it :p

Michael

I wasn't regarding you as 1 you but 1 human among many.

[Michael]

So you think polytheists like the Greeks and Romans were more advanced than the Christians, Muslims and Jews?what do you mean "more advanced"?

[Michael]

hence the problem with polytheism (or even materialistic renditions of monotheistic traditions) is what sort of value can a master have if they are completely at the whim of death, old age and disease ...?

:shrug:I don't get your post. Japanese are polytheists, please reexplain using Japanese Shinto faith as an example.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

It appears to me that having imperfect Gods leads to having more thoroughly corrupt followers, especially if those followers are zealous. I do agree with your distinction, however. The guilt from being less than what God wants can be quite taxing at times. I'm not sure what you mean by self-imprisonment. I wasn't aware that that was demanded, then again, I am not a scholar of world religion by any means.

Monogods are quite imperfect as well. And do not lack corrupt followers.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Monogods are quite imperfect as well. And do not lack corrupt followers.

Monogods? Is that a new word? God is perfect. He defines perfection. Thus, anything he chooses to do is perfect because he decides it is. As far as corrupt followers, they are just evidence of our need to be forgiven, and that Christ's sacrifice was not in vain.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Define perfect.

[one_raven]

Define perfect.

Perfect is a meaningless term without a qualifier or limiter.
A wedge of wood could be a perfect doorstop, but a shit car tire.
Perfect, in and of itself, says nothing.

[lightgigantic]

I don't get your post. Japanese are polytheists, please reexplain using Japanese Shinto faith as an example.
the only master in polytheism is the time factor, since neither the demigod nor demigod worshiper are beyond issues of birth, death, old age and disease (ok maybe a few demigods are beyond issues of old age) .

[Michael]

In a multicultural society, polytheism trains people to accept different beliefs whereas monotheism instills intolerance.

[lightgigantic]

In a multicultural society, polytheism trains people to accept different beliefs whereas monotheism instills intolerance.
never heard of henology?

[Michael]

oneness? ok, but, we're not talking about the religious scholar, we've talking about joe average citizen. you know, the people who do the actual work .. supporting the monasteries.

[lightgigantic]

oneness?
... implying that monotheistic truth can be expressed in various ways .. so the issue of debate is not so much who has the monopoly on it, but who is closer to it and who is further from it .... so the whole business of joining a mosque to burn town a church or joining a church to burn down a mosque is not high on the agenda

ok, but, we're not talking about the religious scholar, we've talking about joe average citizen. you know, the people who do the actual work .. supporting the monasteries.
generally the average joe absorbs the mood of their respective religious leader - even historically, this whole issue of intolerance and monotheism was introduced by certain personalities - like for instance it was St Augustine (religious scholar) who really got into persecuting people of other faiths which probably wouldn't have amounted to much until a few average joes got on board too.
When you are talking of monotheism breeding intolerance, you are simply talking about certain persons who have dominated (or corrupted?) certain academic circles for disseminating knowledge.

[Atopos]

Roman society is quite a bad example, especially in big cities. Roman world was much of a mixture of everything, of capitalism ante-litteram, most romans weren't probably really religious, and this is why with the time religious charges became less and less important - such as the Pontifex Maximus.
Also, late roman society was the one that completely forgot about paganism in a few generation to become 100% christian, which is a proof of how little they really cared about their own old gods.
Anyways, gods were not serf of people by any mean. Yeah, ther was no penitence, no obliged prayers, but do not think that a sailer in the middle of the huge sea would laugh at Poseidon-Neptune, and say "take this fish, you scum, and drive my ship at full speed".
I am heathen, and I can tell you , it is not about who serves who, but about respect and being "almost peers"

[Michael]

generally the average joe absorbs the mood of their respective religious leader - even historically, this whole issue of intolerance and monotheism was introduced by certain personalities - like for instance it was St Augustine (religious scholar) who really got into persecuting people of other faiths which probably wouldn't have amounted to much until a few average joes got on board too.Then it's probably a good thing when joe average is not very religious. I think polythiems, over monotheism, may put joe average the majority, in a good position to not be manipulated by a St. Augustine because there are so many differing beliefs.

It's harder to have a pope in polythism. Especially when gods from other lands come into the mix.

Roman society is quite a bad example, especially in big cities. Roman world was much of a mixture of everything, of capitalism ante-litteram, most romans weren't probably really religious, and this is why with the time religious charges became less and less important - such as the Pontifex Maximus.Welcome to Sciforums Atopos.

Potifex Maximus was what I was thinking about in the above post.


I remember reading an interesting letters from Hadrian's wall where the man says: I asked the gods for something, they gave me nothing, so I will not build an alter to them.

I like this line of thinking :)

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

What if Constantine hadn't had that pivotal dream?

[Kadark]

"Terah was a manufacturer of idols and had them for sale. One day when Terah was absent and Abraham was left to take charge of the shop, an old, yet vigorous, man came in to buy an idol. Abraham handed him the one on top, and he gave him the price asked. "How old art thou?" Abraham asked. "Seventy years," was the answer. "Thou fool," continued Abraham, "how canst thou adore a god so much younger than thou? Thou wert born seventy years ago and this god was made yesterday." The buyer threw away his idol and received his money back. The other sons of Terah complained to their father that Abraham did not know how to sell the idols, and so Abraham was told to attend to the idols as priest. One day a woman brought a meal-offering for the idols, and, as they would not eat, he exclaimed: "A mouth have they but speak not, eyes but see not, ears but hear not, hands but handle not. May their makers be like them, and all who trust in them", and he broke them to pieces and burned them. Abraham was brought before Nimrod, who said: "Knowest thou not that I am god and ruler of the world? Why hast thou destroyed my images?" Then Abraham said: "If thou art god and ruler of the world, why dost thou not cause the sun to rise in the west and set in the east? If thou art god and ruler of the world, tell me all that I have now at heart, and what I shall do in the future." Nimrod was dumfounded, and Abraham continued: 'Thou art the son of Cush, a mortal like him. Thou couldst not save thy father from death, nor wilt thou thyself escape it.'"


Kadark

[Medicine*Woman]

"Terah was a manufacturer of idols and had them for sale. One day when Terah was absent and Abraham was left to take charge of the shop, an old, yet vigorous, man came in to buy an idol. Abraham handed him the one on top, and he gave him the price asked. "How old art thou?" Abraham asked. "Seventy years," was the answer. "Thou fool," continued Abraham, "how canst thou adore a god so much younger than thou? Thou wert born seventy years ago and this god was made yesterday." The buyer threw away his idol and received his money back. The other sons of Terah complained to their father that Abraham did not know how to sell the idols, and so Abraham was told to attend to the idols as priest. One day a woman brought a meal-offering for the idols, and, as they would not eat, he exclaimed: "A mouth have they but speak not, eyes but see not, ears but hear not, hands but handle not. May their makers be like them, and all who trust in them", and he broke them to pieces and burned them. Abraham was brought before Nimrod, who said: "Knowest thou not that I am god and ruler of the world? Why hast thou destroyed my images?" Then Abraham said: "If thou art god and ruler of the world, why dost thou not cause the sun to rise in the west and set in the east? If thou art god and ruler of the world, tell me all that I have now at heart, and what I shall do in the future." Nimrod was dumfounded, and Abraham continued: 'Thou art the son of Cush, a mortal like him. Thou couldst not save thy father from death, nor wilt thou thyself escape it.'"


Kadark
*************
M*W: Interesting! Where did that come from?

[Michael]

It's from The Jewish Encyclopedia and here's the rest which you will find is even more illuminating!

Nimrod said: "Worship the fire!" "Why not water that quenches the fire?" asked Abraham. "Very well, worship the water!" "Why not the clouds which swallow the water?" "So be it; worship the clouds!" Then Abraham said: "Rather let me adore the wind which blows the clouds about!" "So be it; pray to the wind!" "But," said Abraham, "man can stand up against the wind or shield himself behind the walls of his house." "Then adore me!" said Nimrod. Thereupon Nimrod (Amraphel; see Pesiḳ. R. § 33, 'Er. 53a) ordered Abraham to be cast into a furnace. He had a pile of wood five yards in circumference set on fire, and Abraham was cast into it. But God Himself went down from heaven to rescue him. Wherefore the Lord appeared to him later, saying: "I am the Lord who brought thee out of the fire of the Chaldeans" (Ur Kasdim, Gen. xv. 7). The legend betrays Persian influence (compare the Zoroaster legend in Windischmann, "Zoroastrische Studien," pp. 307-313). Regarding the cave in which Abraham dwelt, see ib. p. 113; compare also B. B. 10a. The dialogue with Nimrod, pointing from fire, water, the cloud, wind, and man to God, has its parallel in Hindu legend (see Benfey, "Pantschatantra," i. 376).

Abraham is thereupon commissioned by God to propagate His truth throughout the world, and he wins many souls for Him: while he wins the men, Sarah, his wife, converts the women. In this manner "they made souls in Haran" (Gen. xii. 5, Heb.). He awakens the heathen from slumber and brings them under the wings of God. He is the father of the proselytes (Gen. R. xliii; Mek., Mishpaṭim, § 18).

[Michael]

What if Constantine hadn't had that pivotal dream?Then there probably would be no Jeudaism (at least as we know it) and less or no Xianity and possibly no Islam.



While there's the story that Mohammad brought monotheism to polytheistic Arabs the truth is there are many many monotheistic writings concerning Allah well before Mohammad was born. If he existed then he stepped into a culture teetering on the brink of becoming monotheistic anyway. There was already a blending of Arab myths and Xian/Jewish myths. Think of the Mormons. It's just happens.

It should also be noted that the line between Xian and Jew was blurry. Things weren't as defined as they are now. So the first Muslims were more then likely Arab Jewish-Xians, which may seem odd now but was normal back then.

Anyway,
Michael

[Michael]

Nothing exists in a vacuum... ... ...

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Of course. That dream is more crucial than all the new testament people & events (if they actually happened) combined.

[Atopos]

Of course. That dream is more crucial than all the new testament people & events (if they actually happened) combined.

Did the dream itself actually happen?:bugeye:
Wouldn't some other emperor find christianity convient, sooner or later?

[Medicine*Woman]

Did the dream itself actually happen?:bugeye:
Wouldn't some other emperor find christianity convient, sooner or later?
*************
M*W: More so, is a dream evidence of anything?

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Did the dream itself actually happen?:bugeye:
Wouldn't some other emperor find christianity convient, sooner or later?

Maybe, maybe not.

*************
M*W: More so, is a dream evidence of anything?

The dream or the claim is enormous evidence that the fact of Christianity being what it is today doesn't mean much. That just happens to be the way it turned out. It could just as easily have happened in a way that results in Judaism, Roman mythology or something else being so common today.

[lightgigantic]

Michael“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
generally the average joe absorbs the mood of their respective religious leader - even historically, this whole issue of intolerance and monotheism was introduced by certain personalities - like for instance it was St Augustine (religious scholar) who really got into persecuting people of other faiths which probably wouldn't have amounted to much until a few average joes got on board too.
”
Then it's probably a good thing when joe average is not very religious. I think polythiems, over monotheism, may put joe average the majority, in a good position to not be manipulated by a St. Augustine because there are so many differing beliefs.

BG 3.21 Whatever action a great man performs, common men follow. And whatever standards he sets by exemplary acts, all the world pursues.

It holds true for communism too
;)

It's harder to have a pope in polythism. Especially when gods from other lands come into the mix.
It may be harder to have an orthodoxy with polytheism (due to the diminished role of philosophy), but hierarchy remains a constant, whether amongst chickens or human

[Cellar_Door]

I disagree completely.
First of all, people believe something because they are taught to believe it or coerced into it - narly universally.


That was essentially my point. If we could manufacture a religion to improve society as the OP suggests, then surely religion itself loses the little credibility it had in the first place?

Secondly, of course religion is custom fit to the follower - why do you think there are over 30,000 different Christian sects? Why do you think so many people use teh same book to justify VASTLY different beliefs?

For that I have no answer, I must conclude that that's another 30,000 reasons why Christianity is self-destructive.

[Hapsburg]

Anyway, it was just a thought I had. It seems to me, that this is another example of where polytheism fits in better with society
You're just a tad off. Polytheists did and do worship the gods. But you are right that it wasn't abject and total servitude, and that polytheistic temples were less devoted to orthodoxy.

The main important thing in various polytheistic religions is orthopraxy, or proper religious practice. Even moreso in neopagan religions, which more often than not will accept the existence of each others' deities, but only worship and perform rituals to the ones relevant to their religion and cultural concentration.

*************
M*W: More so, is a dream evidence of anything?
No, but often dreams can be interpreted by the person it happens to as UPG, or Unverified Personal Gnosis.
Though any of the stories about Constantine becoming Christian should be taken with a mound of salt. Constantine was a devoted follower and practitioner of the Imperial Cult of Sol Invictus.

He did not convert to Christianity until his deathbed, and it was more likely than not just to get his Christian wife to finally shut the fuck up, and go make him some pie. :D