Monotheism vs Polytheism

[Valka D'Ur]

Do you mean evidence that their DNA included reptilian instead of afarensis markers? I am just pointing out that there were different types of humans in which the dna was noticeably different. They existed at the same time. I pointed out, we do not have evidence they were superior, but they were not exactly primitive either. They stopped existing after a seemingly specific point in time. I also pointed out this difference between one group of humans and the remaining humans could be the basis of our current religious thought that begin at the time the one group were no longer around. And this could have happened about 10,000 years ago when the records we do have seem to have started. Enough so, that a major event changed the earth in a drastic manner, and humans wanted a reminder of the event, or tried to reconnect with them.

The loss or event may have been perceived as supernatural itself, even if it had a rational, physical cause. Trying to figure out what form religion had before this event may never be proven.

Let's not bring flood fantasies into this.

 

[timtofly]

Monofloodism or Polyfloodism?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Monofloodism or Polyfloodism?

I think you know exactly which one I mean.

 

[timtofly]

Well for reasons beyond my control, or anyone's for that matter, scientific research will never be settled on the topic. If we are going to reduce it down to one dogmatic statement, I would like to read the article that says the matter is settled.

 

[SteamCiv]

Monotheism vs Polytheism

Not sure this was a thread starting out discussing a variant of the Civilization series.
Currently I'm obsessed with Civ 2 Fantastic Worlds where Polytheism is on the tech path to Monotheism.

Polytheism with horseback riding gives you ELEPHANTs which obsoletes chariots.
Monotheism gets you Crusaders; however without Polytheism you cannot get to Monotheism.

I think ELEPHANTs are way to powerful in Civ2 and not even the AI hardly messes with chariots so I made Elephants 1 move(from 2) and increased HP and obsoleted chariots at Monotheism.
This means chariots have greater speed, obsoleting at the same time as elephants but the latter have greater attack; durability and cost more (slowing their production somewhat).

Since now the sum of attack/defense and move are equal on both units (Elephant 1m/4att/2def =7; chariot 2m/3att/2def=7) The AI sees no difference since it counts ONLY the move/attack/defend ignoring all else and will build both if both are available.

Depending on the tech path taken, either dozens of chariots or dozens of elephants are going to show up in the military advisory casualty list until both are obsoleted by Monotheism.

The LEGION too is now having the same stat sum as ELEPHANT and CHARIOT. This not an issue as if the AI has access to all three, will build them ALL until obsoleted or better units appear.

----------

Now if the thread is about more generalized real-world Polytheism and Monotheism, take a look at this article about the rise of Christianity

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/why/starktheology.html

WHY did Christianity SUCCEED?!?

Christianity had every disadvantage, its leader[Jesus Christ] was killed only three years into his mission, hardly enough time to establish anything. The remaining disciples were looking for an exit strategy...
The Article suggests it was superior theology that overcame both the already established Monotheism implementation of the Jews and the venerable institutionalized Polytheism of the Roman Empire.

 

[Traitorfish]

Christianity didn't succeed. Messiah didn't return, did not rule over the world for a thousands years, did not return to Heaven with the faithful. Resounding failure by any measure. What Christianity did, was got very good at pretending this wasn't a problem.

 

[sophie]

Really the theology was not that good at the outset. It's a religion structured wholly around an immediately imminent eschatology. Those don't tend to stick around for very long, because: what do you do when you say the end of days is next week and Tuesday rolls around and nothing happens? Moreover, it's clear that the theology wasn't particularly elegant or straightforward, because of the sheer number of heresies and general disunity that occurred over the course of the Late Antique period. Paul and Tertullian devoted much of their time in writing letters to congregations reminding them to stop circumcising their sons and that women need to keep their heads covered. Augustine engaged in a massive, religion-establishing debate with Pelagius over predestination, and a whole subset of Christians ran around calling Jesus a demigod. The essentiality of the trinity would seem to us to be the sine qua non of the whole religion, and even that was not universally acknowledged. It wasn't until an Emperor personally convened a council to sort this stuff out, and then set about enforcing that council's findings, that any of this stuff began to be resolved. That's a far cry from the Roman pantheon's: "sacrifice a goat and you might get something good if the Gods feel like it"

The religion was very fortunate that:

1) It formed in the Roman Empire, a heavily urbanized polity with a robust and well-connected trade system
2) It benefited from a number of zealous proselytizers who also happened to be excellent rhetoricians
3) Some brilliant philosophical minds, notably Paul, Tertullian, and Augustine were able to take the existing theological groundwork and shape it into something genuinely elegant, capable of standing up to scrutiny.

 

[SteamCiv]

Christianity didn't succeed. Messiah didn't return, did not rule over the world for a thousands years, did not return to Heaven with the faithful. Resounding failure by any measure. What Christianity did, was got very good at pretending this wasn't a problem.

Yes, these stated goals have yet to be realized.
Intriguing though Christianity survived at all, let alone to become the worlds largest religion. Logically, crib death should have claimed it in the first century. Certainly by the 2nd it should have wilted under the persecutions.

Christianity 2.3 billion 31.2% Monotheistic
Islam 1.8 billion 24.1% Monotheistic
Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist ≤1.2 billion 16%
Hinduism 1.1 billion 15.1% Polytheistic

What happened? That is what the article explores.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/why/starktheology.html

In comparison, Moses led hundreds of thousands of people out of slavery and had a strong base to work with.

Mohammad built an army that had 10,000 marching on Medina, much of his success can be explained in military terms and his theology borrows heavily from Christianity and Judaism. He died in his 80's after many years of working with his following.

By contrast, Christianity's founder its founder was executed after only a three year ministry and the disciples were looking for an exit strategy. Why would anyone follow them, especially since already there was Judaism sharing much of the same values and Rome already had centuries long Polytheism?

 

[Cutlass]

If there can't be no gods, than than the most possible gods is best. Let the gods compete for followers. Like TV shows.

 

[Zkribbler]

Can't the gods all get along?

 

[Cutlass]

Why should gods be any better than us mortals?

 

[W|M]

Yes, these stated goals have yet to be realized.
Intriguing though Christianity survived at all, let alone to become the worlds largest religion. Logically, crib death should have claimed it in the first century. Certainly by the 2nd it should have wilted under the persecutions.

Christianity isn't inherently survivalist. Christianity was getting very popular in China during the Tang Dynasty and seems to have been effectively wiped out there following heavy Imperial persecution, while individual sects have constantly been wiped out all over the world.

 

[SteamCiv]

Really the theology was not that good at the outset. It's a religion structured wholly around an immediately imminent eschatology. Those don't tend to stick around for very long, because: what do you do when you say the end of days is next week and Tuesday rolls around and nothing happens? Moreover, it's clear that the theology wasn't particularly elegant or straightforward, because of the sheer number of heresies and general disunity that occurred over the course of the Late Antique period. Paul and Tertullian devoted much of their time in writing letters to congregations reminding them to stop circumcising their sons and that women need to keep their heads covered. Augustine engaged in a massive, religion-establishing debate with Pelagius over predestination, and a whole subset of Christians ran around calling Jesus a demigod. The essentiality of the trinity would seem to us to be the sine qua non of the whole religion, and even that was not universally acknowledged. It wasn't until an Emperor personally convened a council to sort this stuff out, and then set about enforcing that council's findings, that any of this stuff began to be resolved. That's a far cry from the Roman pantheon's: "sacrifice a goat and you might get something good if the Gods feel like it"

The religion was very fortunate that:

1) It formed in the Roman Empire, a heavily urbanized polity with a robust and well-connected trade system
2) It benefited from a number of zealous proselytizers who also happened to be excellent rhetoricians
3) Some brilliant philosophical minds, notably Paul, Tertullian, and Augustine were able to take the existing theological groundwork and shape it into something genuinely elegant, capable of standing up to scrutiny.

These things regarding proselytizers rhetoricians and trade systems that you state are yes, are facts, though these things were available to everyone else at the onset of the first century. The fact that there were numerous heresies developing underscores growing Christianity's success within the hostile Empire.

The question being explored here is WHY should persecuted 33-300 AD era Christians have any advantage here unless they have something REALLY worthwhile to say or offer the other then existent religions could not ?

Yes it is politically incorrect to suggest that one religion has doctrines that are superior than another, yet--
why, how did Christianity succeed in its first 400 years without militant revolt or conquest?

Just what were some of its doctrines that allowed it to sustain that was not present in the polytheistic religions of Rome?

As per the article there is the social component of the the theology:
" slave and noble greeted one another as brothers in Christ"

So apparently this egalitarianism was missing from what Rome had in its religions. Slaves under Christ had the same standing as nobles.

According to tradition, Pope Clement I (term c. 92–99), Pope Pius I (158–167) and Pope Callixtus I (c. 217–222) were former slaves

--turning mercy and pity into a VIRTUE rather than a defect of character; (because one is sharing resources with those who did not earn them without return benefit)
--the mindset that love and charity must extend beyond the " boundaries of family and tribe" and the "Christian community" to those who are not a part of it
--God DOES care HOW others are treated .....(quoting the article) "the gods can be induced to exchange services for sacrifices....., the idea that God loves those who love him was entirely new.....that because God loves humanity, Christians may not please God unless they love one another was something entirely new. "

Jews had these ideals since Christianity came from Judaism, Jesus was a Jew, however, because of the necessity to "ethnically" (as per article) become a Jew when converting, it simply was too huge of a barrier for others thinking about a decision to become part of Judaism.

"Christianity first evaded and then overwhelmed the ethnic barrier that had prevented Judaism from serving as the basis for revitalization. "

 

[SteamCiv]

Christianity isn't inherently survivalist. Christianity was getting very popular in China during the Tang Dynasty and seems to have been effectively wiped out there following heavy Imperial persecution, while individual sects have constantly been wiped out all over the world.

Communist China under Mao worked had to wipe out all religions. Not so much anymore as currently (and still under various pressures of persecution) 67 million Christians in China (by contrast Europe has 553 million).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_China

Yes, the same happened in feudal Japan, the eradication of all Christians. I saw a documentary conveying it challenged the stratification of their society which was divided up between the ruling elite, military and peasant class. Probably a simplification but an important component of Christianity is that..." There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28 ) which extends of course to these classes. Peasants who are suddenly equal to the royals, even in a religious context, was in the Japanese view at the time, a threat to their social stability.

What I'm exploring though is how Christianity managed to survive to begin with; especially formed from Judaism as a heretic religion, then quickly exceeding it. All along while inside a vastly well organized Polytheistic society of Rome which it changed. Headquarters of a large portion of Christianity (Catholicism) still in Rome.

 

[Traitorfish]

Communist China under Mao worked had to wipe out all religions. Not so much anymore as currently (and still under various pressures of persecution) 67 million Christians in China (by contrast Europe has 553 million).

The Tang dynasty ended in 907. The Christians that WIM was referring to mostly Nestorians, members of the Eastern Churches which spread along the Silk Road. Contemporary Chinese Christians are mostly Catholic or Protestant, with a smattering of Orthodox, and those sects weren't adopted on any sort of scale until the nineteenth century. They don't represent the survival of ancient Chinese Christian communities, is the point, so Christianity's long-livedness must owe something to circumstance, and not just the apparently self-evident superiority of its doctrine.

Yes, the same happened in feudal Japan, the eradication of all Christians. I saw a documentary conveying it challenged the stratification of their society which was divided up between the ruling elite, military and peasant class. Probably a simplification but an important component of Christianity is that..." There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28 ) which extends of course to these classes. Peasants who are suddenly equal to the royals, even in a religious context, was in the Japanese view at the time, a threat to their social stability.

The Japanese were pretty well-acquainted with Buddhism, which has a similar nominal adherence to social equality. Why would that message suddenly become more destabilising just because it was delivered by a bunch of weird-looking foreigners? Considering, further, that the weird-looking foreigners in question were Jesuits, who although strikingly modern in some respects, were absolutely comfortable with social stratification, and in fact made a point of adapting to the traditions and social mores of their hosts, at least when they were not directly contrary to Catholic doctrine. (Unlike the Dominicans, who were the religious equivalent of people who think you can overcome a language barrier by talking very loudly.) It isn't like somebody had dumped a bunch of fire-breathing Baptists from the Great Revival-era into the mix.

 

[sophie]

Wait, when did we move away from the Early Church?? Because if we're talking post-Augustinian Neoplatonic Christian theology, any pretense of egalitarian or providentially equalized society goes directly out the window.

Great Chain of Being, y'all.

 

[timtofly]

Christianity as a religion prospered because Jesus the Christ was Not the founder.

The religion prospers because each century strong leaders all over the world gain strong followings to their particular brand of Christianity.

Or, there is a spiritual connection that binds all Christians together in unity despite their personal beliefs.

 

[Traitorfish]

Or, there is a spiritual connection that binds all Christians together in unity despite their personal beliefs.

 

[Dachs]

obviously photoshopped

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Or, there is a spiritual connection that binds all Christians together in unity despite their personal beliefs.

What a shame nobody sent a memo about this to the various monarchs and others throughout the last 1900 years and change (it hasn't been 2000 years yet), when they decided to start persecuting and killing their fellow Christians who didn't all share the same exact beliefs, perform the same exact rituals, or make the same exact gestures during their worship services.