Fan of theocracy?

[Cheetah]

It literally means "leader". But if one says "the Fuhrer" these days, everyone knows who it is. So I'd say it qualifies.

 

[Traitorfish]

It literally means "leader". But if one says "the Fuhrer" these days, everyone knows who it is. So I'd say it qualifies.

That seems like it owes more to the exoticness of the title in non-German languages, rather than any sort of preeminence among fuhrers. Similarly, most English-speakers take "the Kaiser" to mean Wilhelm II, even though he is one of dozens of rulers to bear the title, simply because they're unused to seeing it any other context.

 

[Patine]

It literally means "leader". But if one says "the Fuhrer" these days, everyone knows who it is. So I'd say it qualifies.

As I said in my post above, it's a specific older and more archaic way of saying "leader" in a specific context and usage in the Dark Ages environment it grew from, before the modern German language had even evolved to it's current form. I believe the word "leiter," is Modern German for just a generic "leader," and was even so when the Nazi Party was, itself, forming, and for quite a while previously. I'm pretty sure the "classical, old form," nature of the word "Fuhrer" is one of the big reasons that Goebbels suggested it for Hitler's use.

 

[Berzerker]

This is an incorrect statement, unless you're referring to the Aton, Sol Invictus, and other short-lived cults developed among polytheist societies. Monotheism moreso suppresses and steamrollers polytheism as it spreads, but doesn't actually really grow from it meaningfully, except retaining some traditions around sacred holidays and rituals on a regional level that become merely esthetic, stripped of their original meaning and purpose (a la, the Christmas Tree. the Easter Egg, Afghan and Turkic Tribal Traditions, Nowruz, etc.).

Mesopotamian polytheism led to Hebrew monotheism... Says so right there in the Bible. Upon entering the promised land Joshua tells the people their fathers served other gods in the land of the 2 rivers.

 

[Patine]

Mesopotamian polytheism led to Hebrew monotheism... Says so right there in the Bible. Upon entering the promised land Joshua tells the people their fathers served other gods in the land of the 2 rivers.

In wasn't exactly as direct as you're saying here. Abraham, according to strongly-believed apocryphal stories not in scripture, was the son of an idol-maker. He destroyed, according to these stories, his father's handiwork (and livelihood) and was banished from Mesopotamia to the Levant, where he and Sarah started a new life with a completely new faith largely unrelated (and seemingly completely contrary) to Abraham's father's. Also, Sikhism, another monotheist religion (but not an Abrahamic one, directly) also grew more out of defiance (against the endless wars and forced conversions and strict caste systems and forced marriages as spoils of wars of conquest between the Hindus and Moslems in Northern India at that time), but it was not directly an outgrowth but a rejection of formerly dominant religious ideals and values that shaped it there too.

 

[Berzerker]

If Abraham's Pa was a polytheist and Abraham rejected his religion to be a monotheist then it was direct

 

[Patine]

If Abraham's Pa was a polytheist and Abraham rejected his religion to be a monotheist then it was direct

In a simplistic, black-and-white, cut-and-dry world, perhaps. But we don't live in such a world...

If you look at the rituals, ceremonies, observances, beliefs, and scriptural narrative of the various era of Judaism (pre-Sinai, Exodus, Twelve Tribes and Judges, Kingdoms of Judah and Israel, Babylonian Captivity, Second Temple, Diaspora, and the somewhat uncertain post-1947 age) and compare it with those things of the various chain of religious development for Mesopotamian religion (Sumerian, Akkadian, Elamite, Gutian, three Babylonian Dynasties, two Assyrian Empires, and lingering cults under Achaemenid, Macedonian, Seleucid, Parthian, Sassanian, Roman, and VERY early Caliphate), the two are so different that next to no common ground can be found other than some geographical references in common and linguistic similarities due to Hebrew and Akkadian being related linguistically - virtually nothing else in common.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

In a simplistic, black-and-white, cut-and-dry world, perhaps. But we don't live in such a world...

If you look at the rituals, ceremonies, observances, beliefs, and scriptural narrative of the various era of Judaism (pre-Sinai, Exodus, Twelve Tribes and Judges, Kingdoms of Judah and Israel, Babylonian Captivity, Second Temple, Diaspora, and the somewhat uncertain post-1947 age) and compare it with those things of the various chain of religious development for Mesopotamian religion (Sumerian, Akkadian, Elamite, Gutian, three Babylonian Dynasties, two Assyrian Empires, and lingering cults under Achaemenid, Macedonian, Seleucid, Parthian, Sassanian, Roman, and VERY early Caliphate), the two are so different that next to no common ground can be found other than some geographical references in common and linguistic similarities due to Hebrew and Akkadian being related linguistically - virtually nothing else in common.

There seems to be an assumption here that "direct connection" is somehow equal to "similarity." I don't see how you can use lack of similarity as evidence of lack of connection any other way, but that equivalence is false.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Abraham, according to strongly-believed apocryphal stories not in scripture, was the son of an idol-maker. He destroyed, according to these stories, his father's handiwork (and livelihood) and was banished from Mesopotamia to the Levant, where he and Sarah started a new life with a completely new faith largely unrelated (and seemingly completely contrary) to Abraham's father's.

Don't you mean "according to the Koran?"

 

[Traitorfish]

If you look at the rituals, ceremonies, observances, beliefs, and scriptural narrative of the various era of Judaism (pre-Sinai, Exodus, Twelve Tribes and Judges, Kingdoms of Judah and Israel, Babylonian Captivity, Second Temple, Diaspora, and the somewhat uncertain post-1947 age) and compare it with those things of the various chain of religious development for Mesopotamian religion (Sumerian, Akkadian, Elamite, Gutian, three Babylonian Dynasties, two Assyrian Empires, and lingering cults under Achaemenid, Macedonian, Seleucid, Parthian, Sassanian, Roman, and VERY early Caliphate), the two are so different that next to no common ground can be found other than some geographical references in common and linguistic similarities due to Hebrew and Akkadian being related linguistically - virtually nothing else in common.

Do you have any specific examples? Superficially, we're looking at a pretty similar structure of temple-orientated cults, structured around regular sacrifices performed by an elite priestly class.

 

[Live trash can]

What possible comparative study could you be basing this on.

I have rather limited knowledge on this question, but what I do believe is that Tibet, which was a Theocracy, treated the environment with respect and in a sustainable way. I am still waiting for my book on Theocracies in the world.

But it is quite obvious that it was non-thecracies that brought global warming and the host of other environmental problems.

Another interesting study would be what kind of rule there was in European countries between say the years 800 and 1900. Because the church was rather important. But how important?

 

[Traitorfish]

I have rather limited knowledge on this question, but what I do believe is that Tibet, which was a Theocracy, treated the environment with respect and in a sustainable way.

Was that for ethical reasons, or was it simply how pre-modern Himalayan societies worked? Were the people of Nepal or Bhutan particularly destructive towards their environments? The obviously comparison would be between mountain and flatland societies, rather than societies whose rulers happened to be religious figures, especially as in the Tibetan case were the "theocracy" was more of a paramount lordship than any sort of centralising state.

 

[Live trash can]

Was that for ethical reasons, or was it simply how pre-modern Himalayan societies worked? Were the people of Nepal or Bhutan particularly destructive towards their environments? The obviously comparison would be between mountain and flatland societies, rather than societies whose rulers happened to be religious figures, especially as in the Tibetan case were the "theocracy" was more of a paramount lordship than any sort of centralising state.

Yes, that is an interesting question!
I guess you would have to see how the Tibetans have behaved in the Modern world, to really get an answer.

The question beeing if they have continiued with their sustainable lifestyle. Which I think they have!

Perhaps life is swell in Tibet...

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I do not know a lot about the history of Tibet, but I have read that before it became a theocracy the people of that region relied heavily on hunting for food. Harsh religious laws against eating meat forced the Tibetans to switch to subsistence farming, despite the land being very ill suited for agriculture. The yields from farming were so low per acre that they had to clear very large areas of wilderness (destroying the habitats of the animals who used to prosper there) in order to make farms large enough to support the human population, which still was not enough to avert frequent famines. Overall, Buddhism was disastrous for the Tibetan ecology.

 

[Live trash can]

I do not know a lot about the history of Tibet, but I have read that before it became a theocracy the people of that region relied heavily on hunting for food. Harsh religious laws against eating meat forced the Tibetans to switch to subsistence farming, despite the land being very ill suited for agriculture. The yields from farming were so low per acre that they had to clear very large areas of wilderness (destroying the habitats of the animals who used to prosper there) in order to make farms large enough to support the human population, which stil was not enough to avert frequent famines.

If that is true, then you don't know a little, you know a lot!

I believe the country lies so high that there are no forests to destroy. And the population is quite limited. They grow rice and barely I believe and the yak-farming is very important!

 

[Berzerker]

In a simplistic, black-and-white, cut-and-dry world, perhaps. But we don't live in such a world...

If you look at the rituals, ceremonies, observances, beliefs, and scriptural narrative of the various era of Judaism (pre-Sinai, Exodus, Twelve Tribes and Judges, Kingdoms of Judah and Israel, Babylonian Captivity, Second Temple, Diaspora, and the somewhat uncertain post-1947 age) and compare it with those things of the various chain of religious development for Mesopotamian religion (Sumerian, Akkadian, Elamite, Gutian, three Babylonian Dynasties, two Assyrian Empires, and lingering cults under Achaemenid, Macedonian, Seleucid, Parthian, Sassanian, Roman, and VERY early Caliphate), the two are so different that next to no common ground can be found other than some geographical references in common and linguistic similarities due to Hebrew and Akkadian being related linguistically - virtually nothing else in common.

The creation story in Genesis derives from an earlier Mesopotamian version and the monotheists mostly demoted the gods to 'angel' or 'demon' status in favor of their tribal deity, hence the commandment 'no other gods before me'.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Monotheism generally seems a natural outgrowth of a polytheism that develops a "chief god." Comparable ritual structures following along, with the chief god's festivals becoming more significant while the rituals and festivals of the lesser gods are reduced in importance until they eventually become "secular holidays" would also be a predictable progression.

 

[Patine]

Was that for ethical reasons, or was it simply how pre-modern Himalayan societies worked? Were the people of Nepal or Bhutan particularly destructive towards their environments? The obviously comparison would be between mountain and flatland societies, rather than societies whose rulers happened to be religious figures, especially as in the Tibetan case were the "theocracy" was more of a paramount lordship than any sort of centralising state.

Yes, that is an interesting question!
I guess you would have to see how the Tibetans have behaved in the Modern world, to really get an answer.

The question beeing if they have continiued with their sustainable lifestyle. Which I think they have!

Perhaps life is swell in Tibet...

This is an interesting topic, and one not fully understood by Westerners, because of the conflict of strong (and, in both cases, not completely accurate) biases by two source groups - the Chinese Communist and the "hippie historical line" (for lack of a better term). Tibet only became a theocracy in the 15th Century when a remnant Mongol Khan converted to Tibetan Buddhism and used his military power to install the 6th Dalai as an absolute theocrat in the first place. There was a military, expansionist nation called the Tibetan EMPIRE, ruled effectively by warlord-emperors from about the 3rd to 9th Centuries. Also, the Dalai Lama's theocracy was not the land of milk and honey it was made out to be. When someone says that Tibet has never had freedom, liberty, democracy, and respect for human rights since China annexed the country in 1959, that phrase must be altered - Tibet has NEVER had freedom, liberty, democracy, and respect for human rights, period, full stop! Under the 13th Dalai Lama, the one in exile's predecessor, and the last one to rule Tibet effectively in his own name and under his authority (and the current one was just a teenager with the Kashag, or "high council" of Tibet, governing in regency for him at the time of the exile in 1959), the theocracy was VERY absolute. About 95% of the population was effectively in a state of permanent serfdom through a justification called "karmic debt" - in fact, the state holiday in the modern Tibetan Autonomous Area promoted by the CPC and PRC of Tibet's annexation's anniversary in 1959 is called "Day of the Emancipation of Serfs" - and law and justice were passed arbitrarily, as the lamas could not be refuted, and such punishment as amputations - and not just the typical heads and hands of Sharia, but a larger selection of possibility - were recorded punishments by many different outsiders with different points of view. There were no human rights, no freedom, no democracy, and no liberty at all. And while this does not justify the Chinese invasion and annexation AT ALL, the Western perspective needs more honesty on what exactly was going on before hand and the sort of regime that is so championed that was usurped.

 

[Cheetah]

Monotheism generally seems a natural outgrowth of a polytheism that develops a "chief god." Comparable ritual structures following along, with the chief god's festivals becoming more significant while the rituals and festivals of the lesser gods are reduced in importance until they eventually become "secular holidays" would also be a predictable progression.

Yes, the in-between step is called «henotheism» or «monolatry». Canaanite religion went through different phases, but it was only when the royal cult of Jerusalem (and only Jerusalem; Judea never existed, and Israel was further north and never included Jerusalem) started to strengthen its authority that a henotheistic Canaanite religion started to form, with the fusion of El and Yahweh.

Judaism as a monotheistic Canaanite religion didn't fully form until some time after the Babylonian captivity, so around ~300 BCE.

Canaanite religion and early Judaism
Rabbinical Judaism as it developed in Late Antiquity is emphatically monotheistic. However, its predecessor—the various schools of Hellenistic Judaism and Second Temple Judaism, and especially the cult of Yahweh as it was practiced in ancient Israel and Judah during the 8th and 7th centuries BC—have been described as henotheistic.

For example, the Moabites worshipped the god Chemosh, the Edomites, Qaus, both of whom were part of the greater Canaanite pantheon, headed by the chief god, El. The Canaanite pantheon consisted of El and Asherah as the chief deities, with 70 sons who were said to rule over each of the nations of the earth. These sons were each worshiped within a specific region. Kurt Noll states that "the Bible preserves a tradition that Yahweh used to 'live' in the south, in the land of Edom" and that the original god of Israel was El Shaddai.[27]

Several Biblical stories[which?] allude to the belief that the Canaanite gods all existed and were thought[by whom?] to possess the most power in the lands by the people who worshiped them and their sacred objects; their power was believed to be real and could be invoked by the people who patronized them. There are numerous accounts[citation needed] of surrounding nations of Israel showing fear or reverence for the Israelite God despite their continued polytheistic practices.[28] For instance, in 1 Samuel 4, the Philistines fret before the second battle of Aphek when they learn that the Israelites are bearing the Ark of the Covenant, and therefore Yahweh, into battle. The Israelites were forbidden[29] to worship other deities, but according to some interpretations[which?] of the Bible, they were not fully monotheistic before the Babylonian captivity. Mark S. Smith refers to this stage as a form of monolatry.[30] Smith argues that Yahweh underwent a process of merging with El and that acceptance of cults of Asherah was common in the period of the Judges.[30] 2 Kings 3:27 has been interpreted as describing a human sacrifice in Moab that led the invading Israelite army to fear the power of Chemosh.[31]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henotheism#Canaanite_religion_and_early_Judaism

 

[Berzerker]

many gods > many gods but none better than mine > only my god exists