Why is monotheism an advance on polytheism?
- Thread starter Afgnwrlrd
- Start date
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Well, to me, Sect is kind of a shortening of the word 'Sect-ion', and a Section in just a part of a greater whole-so I can't see why people get such a negative connotation from the word.
To confirm it, here is the definition from Dictionary.com (and, right underneath it, is the meaning of the word Sect-ion!)
sect
n.
1. A group of people forming a distinct unit within a larger group by virtue of certain refinements or distinctions of belief or practice.
2. A religious body, especially one that has separated from a larger denomination.
3. A faction united by common interests or beliefs.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
To confirm it, here is the definition from Dictionary.com (and, right underneath it, is the meaning of the word Sect-ion!)
sect
n.
1. A group of people forming a distinct unit within a larger group by virtue of certain refinements or distinctions of belief or practice.
2. A religious body, especially one that has separated from a larger denomination.
3. A faction united by common interests or beliefs.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
ShunNakamura
Warlord
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 246
Dang you Aussie.. you beat me to it I was just about to post the same thing 
Anyways, Unless the gov advances are different. Democracy does not have Facism as one of it's pre-requisits.
That is where I think the problem is arising.. not that it is later, but rather that it is implying(to some) that monotheism is better.
Anyways, Unless the gov advances are different. Democracy does not have Facism as one of it's pre-requisits.
That is where I think the problem is arising.. not that it is later, but rather that it is implying(to some) that monotheism is better.
brennan
Argumentative Brit
Group hug anyone?
BTW the Mongols failed to conquer Japan because their fleets (they tried twice IIRC) were sunk by Tai-Fung (Typhoon='Divine wind'). Then they decided that the Gods didn't want them to invade.
As has been said, the great Mongol general Subedai was poised to ravage Western Europe, having defeated the armies of Eastern Europe, when he received news that the Khan had died. The Mongol Horde packed up and went home to elect a new Khan.
The Mongols defeated the most powerful civilisations in the world at that time, China and Khwarazmia (spell that!) and the remains of the Byzantine Empire, western Europe was still a backwater dump for more than a century.
The Ming Dynasty of Chinese Emperors were descendents of the Mongols.
And to get (vaguely) back on topic: The only religion the Mongols did not approve of was Christianity, since it claimed that there was only one God!
PS. Richard the Lionheart was a lousy King and never even set foot in England!
BTW the Mongols failed to conquer Japan because their fleets (they tried twice IIRC) were sunk by Tai-Fung (Typhoon='Divine wind'). Then they decided that the Gods didn't want them to invade.
As has been said, the great Mongol general Subedai was poised to ravage Western Europe, having defeated the armies of Eastern Europe, when he received news that the Khan had died. The Mongol Horde packed up and went home to elect a new Khan.
The Mongols defeated the most powerful civilisations in the world at that time, China and Khwarazmia (spell that!) and the remains of the Byzantine Empire, western Europe was still a backwater dump for more than a century.
The Ming Dynasty of Chinese Emperors were descendents of the Mongols.
And to get (vaguely) back on topic: The only religion the Mongols did not approve of was Christianity, since it claimed that there was only one God!
PS. Richard the Lionheart was a lousy King and never even set foot in England!
Markus6
Prince
Sect isn't a word that means anything bad. But it has developed those meanings, at least in the eyes of people with religious beliefs. It now means similar to cult, and carries connotations of untoward practices (e.g. blood rituals or whatever).
Lockesdonkey
Liberal Jihadist
brennan said:
A few points:
The Tai-feng means "great wind" in Chinese. The Japanese called it "Kami kaze" (Divine Wind) when it kept the Mongols off Japan.
The Ming were Han Chinese who led a rebellion against the Mongols, aided by the plague.
There were plenty of Christian Mongols; the mother of Mongka Khan (Jenghis's granson and immediate successor), Sorghaqatani, was a Christian, and it largely by her influence that her sone became Khan. Furthermore, before they were united, there were several tribes under khans with names like George and Thomas. Mongka was not a Christian, but he did tolerate them' his opinion on religions was that the great religions were "like the fingers of a single hand--but Buddhism is the palm!"
And Richard did go to England, it's just that he wasn't there that often. He was a warrior at heart, and all the battles were elsewhere; in France (to fight his rivals among the French nobility) and in Palestine (as a Crusader).
Raggamuffin
Warlord
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2003
- Messages
- 244
Quite an achievement that the two Jewish sects Christianity and Islam has both surpassed their original inspiration in popularity.
Brennan:
Did the Mongols tolerate Islam?
I thought Islam has a stricter Monotheistic doctrine than Christianity.
The Mongols rode into Southwestern Asia and slaughtered Arabs by the thousands.
I'm not sure about that "The only religion the Mongols didn't approve of was Christianity"
Did the Mongols tolerate Islam?
I thought Islam has a stricter Monotheistic doctrine than Christianity.
The Mongols rode into Southwestern Asia and slaughtered Arabs by the thousands.
I'm not sure about that "The only religion the Mongols didn't approve of was Christianity"
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Thats correct, Crayton-to a degree. When the Mongols arrived, anywhere, they just tended to go around slaughtering anyone they could find-irrespective of their religious beliefs. The Muslims of that time feared-and hated-the Mongols as much, if not even more, as the Christians did. In fact, representatives of Islam sought out their Christian counterparts to try and seek an alliance against the shared threat of the Mongol Horde (which the Muslims saw as a threat to Monotheism as a whole). The Christians turned them away, though, because at the time they were quite happy for the 'Heathens' to slaughter each other-and felt that they could easily deal with any Mongol threat. Shows how wrong they were 
.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
.Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
brennan
Argumentative Brit
The only 'slaughter' I am aware of the Mongols committing was in china, where there was a peasant class, analogous to particularly downtrodden feudal serfs. This underclass were considered to be little more than animals by the Mongols, since they did not behave in any way the Mongols would respect. I believe some records show that the population of China fell dropped by 50 million (about a half IIRC) in the period after the Mongol invasion. Fortunately the Mongols became the established rulers and came to understand social systems better quite quickly.
The reason the Mongols are associated with needless slaughter is that when they arrived in a region that had no experience of them they would proceed in this manner: approach city, say 'Surrender or Die'. The city almost always decided to fight. The Mongols would then capture the city and kill every living thing inside. Then proceed to the next city, which would usually surrender.
The Christians believed, at first, that the Mongols were the armies of a legendary Eastern Christian ruler they called 'Prester John', so they left the Islamic Nations to their fate. Too late they realised their mistake and began to believe the Mongols to be descendents of the legendary giants and cannibals Gog and Magog...
I do not remember ever hearing of the Mongols having a particular dislike of Islam, it seems more likely to me that Islam was not quite as fanatical as Christianity, which always seems to regard other religions as wicked. Islam, after all regards Judaism and Christianity as versions of Islam that favour particular prophetic figures. Thus Islam would be better tolerated by the Mongol rulers. I did not intend to suggest that Christianity was not tolerated by the Mongols, merely that as a religion that stated specifically that all other religions were false and wicked, it was looked upon most unfavourably.
Lockes':
Mongka was the fourth Khan, following Ghengis, Ogedai and Guyuk. His grandfather, uncle and nephew respectively.
Thanks, for the Divine Wind correction, I had forgotten about the extra Japanese dimension. Kami-Kaze does not mean suicide as many people think.
You are correct about Richard, he spent a total of 6 months in England, the Kings of the period considered the (nominally French) lands of Normandy, Aquitaine and Anjou more valuable than their English posessions since they were descendents of the Normans. But Richard did not only spend most of his time away because he was crusading, he actually had less regard for England than the other Plantagenet Kings.
To get on topic: Monotheism follows from Polytheism because only an established civilisation is arrogant enough to believe that the World must have been created by a single divine being as a deliberate act intended to bring about said civilisation. Up until that point, Gods are just great Spirits of nature, capricious and frequently selfish and stupid.
The reason the Mongols are associated with needless slaughter is that when they arrived in a region that had no experience of them they would proceed in this manner: approach city, say 'Surrender or Die'. The city almost always decided to fight. The Mongols would then capture the city and kill every living thing inside. Then proceed to the next city, which would usually surrender.
The Christians believed, at first, that the Mongols were the armies of a legendary Eastern Christian ruler they called 'Prester John', so they left the Islamic Nations to their fate. Too late they realised their mistake and began to believe the Mongols to be descendents of the legendary giants and cannibals Gog and Magog...
I do not remember ever hearing of the Mongols having a particular dislike of Islam, it seems more likely to me that Islam was not quite as fanatical as Christianity, which always seems to regard other religions as wicked. Islam, after all regards Judaism and Christianity as versions of Islam that favour particular prophetic figures. Thus Islam would be better tolerated by the Mongol rulers. I did not intend to suggest that Christianity was not tolerated by the Mongols, merely that as a religion that stated specifically that all other religions were false and wicked, it was looked upon most unfavourably.
Lockes':
Mongka was the fourth Khan, following Ghengis, Ogedai and Guyuk. His grandfather, uncle and nephew respectively.
Thanks, for the Divine Wind correction, I had forgotten about the extra Japanese dimension. Kami-Kaze does not mean suicide as many people think.
You are correct about Richard, he spent a total of 6 months in England, the Kings of the period considered the (nominally French) lands of Normandy, Aquitaine and Anjou more valuable than their English posessions since they were descendents of the Normans. But Richard did not only spend most of his time away because he was crusading, he actually had less regard for England than the other Plantagenet Kings.
To get on topic: Monotheism follows from Polytheism because only an established civilisation is arrogant enough to believe that the World must have been created by a single divine being as a deliberate act intended to bring about said civilisation. Up until that point, Gods are just great Spirits of nature, capricious and frequently selfish and stupid.
Inhalaattori
Emperor
Why? The reason is that polytheist faiths are/were mostly local. Most polytheistics dont want to spread their own religion to others. They dont think that their religion is BETTER than others. It is just their religion...
Fundamentalism and brainwashing are typical for monotheistic religions. If you are a hindu or buddhist, you have much more freedom to think and say what you want about religious subjects.
TheDervish
Scion of the Achaemenids
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2005
- Messages
- 665
Keep in mind that Hinduism (Sanantan Dharma) is comprised of many beliefs. The most organized camps are those of Shaivism and Vaishnavism. In Shaivism they consider Shiva to be the Supreme Lord, and in Vaishnavism they consider Vishnu/Krishna to be the Supreme Lord. The demigods are merely accessories in this belief, much like angels in other religions who although may have supernatural powers cannot be considered on par with God. In that way, Vaishnavism and Shaivism can be considered monotheistic in nature.
William Wilson
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2005
- Messages
- 29
I am not a religious man, but what you must consider Inhalaattori. is that they believe that stuff. They are trying to persuade you - that is what they are doing by "brainwashing". They believe that they know the meaning of life and their religion is not only "better", but it is the truth. So there is really no harm intended by spreading their word and it does make sense why they would consider their religion the better choice and thereby all other religions that differ to be bias.
Sadly things get violent and tyrannical at times, but the thought behind it is not that bad.
Jamesds
Great Scientist
I guess this arguement is like "who came first: the chicken or the egg?".
Being a Christian, I think differently than people of other beliefs (I am of the opinion that monotheism came first)
Being a Christian, I think differently than people of other beliefs (I am of the opinion that monotheism came first)
Markus6
Prince
I'm a christian, i think differently than people of other beliefs. However, Abraham came from Ur, a city that worshipped the moon (or sun can't remember) god and was part of a polytheistic culture. Obviously Adam was monotheistic but the human race developed polytheism first.
Steve2000
Mighty Pirate
There is some recent data (Discover Magazine, August 2005) that shows that some cultures developed monotheism, while other developed polytheism. The connection seems to be if the people came from the more arid regions of earth, with little diversity they tended to quickly develop a monotheistic (or at least one primary god) system of religion. These cultures tended to be fatalistic in nature due to the harsh nature of their environment. Cultures that developed in the more biodiverse regions such as jungles and rich forests developed polytheistic societies, often assigning gods to all of the different types of life around them.
So maybe neither came first, it just depends on where the culture began. Since Muslims, Christians, and Jews came from the desert, and since we can assume the writers of the game are probably monotheistic, it is not a surprise that they would see monotheism as a natural step from polytheism.
So maybe neither came first, it just depends on where the culture began. Since Muslims, Christians, and Jews came from the desert, and since we can assume the writers of the game are probably monotheistic, it is not a surprise that they would see monotheism as a natural step from polytheism.
troytheface
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2002
- Messages
- 3,262
hesitated on but i can't resist...
"knew i should know better than to reply to a troll"
Yes- i am a troll and u are the great communicator of rationality...lol
Look , maybe some on here are 10 years old for all i know and in such a case than u are very smart and i apologise....however one might want to consider that any book about the mongols may be biased by the authors-they are pushing ideas, trying convince ect.
(It has been my experience in life that know-it-alls tend to get all worked up-in this case to the point where starting the reply with an insult was used as a device to discredit someone's alternative view)- Elvis Costello- i used to get angry now i'm just amused"
However- "Our ancestors would have been vassals"....? Since a good deal of Americans are of Scandanavian and English Descent (and since both were better at sea power) I doubt our ancestors would have been "vassals" I contend that Norway would be a hard nut to crack (following the idea that topography would not favor mongol tactics) and the reply was "why would they want norway" ?
(Reminds me of when someone asked to name a Asian country that knows about Van Gogh and when i state that Japan spent the most money ever for a painting (irises- van gogh) the retort was that japan is "westernized"
So Norway is not European- and Japan is not an Asian country- my mistake....
Then johnny Warsaw gets uptight when i state that the Arabs Chinese and Polish suxed at fighting the Mongols- oh sorry- they were great thats why they ...lost?
(he goes on to talk about fighting the ottomen's which has nothing at all to do with the mongols)
On topic- the topographical genesis of religion was indeed interesting- read that physical features are determined in a similiar fashion...
"knew i should know better than to reply to a troll"
Yes- i am a troll and u are the great communicator of rationality...lol
Look , maybe some on here are 10 years old for all i know and in such a case than u are very smart and i apologise....however one might want to consider that any book about the mongols may be biased by the authors-they are pushing ideas, trying convince ect.
(It has been my experience in life that know-it-alls tend to get all worked up-in this case to the point where starting the reply with an insult was used as a device to discredit someone's alternative view)- Elvis Costello- i used to get angry now i'm just amused"
However- "Our ancestors would have been vassals"....? Since a good deal of Americans are of Scandanavian and English Descent (and since both were better at sea power) I doubt our ancestors would have been "vassals" I contend that Norway would be a hard nut to crack (following the idea that topography would not favor mongol tactics) and the reply was "why would they want norway" ?
(Reminds me of when someone asked to name a Asian country that knows about Van Gogh and when i state that Japan spent the most money ever for a painting (irises- van gogh) the retort was that japan is "westernized"
So Norway is not European- and Japan is not an Asian country- my mistake....
Then johnny Warsaw gets uptight when i state that the Arabs Chinese and Polish suxed at fighting the Mongols- oh sorry- they were great thats why they ...lost?
(he goes on to talk about fighting the ottomen's which has nothing at all to do with the mongols)
On topic- the topographical genesis of religion was indeed interesting- read that physical features are determined in a similiar fashion...
Did the Mongols Sack and Burn Baghdad in 1258, kill every upper class citizen, and loot their way westwards through Damascus, Antioch, and Jerusalem until they met a slave army?
Sorry off-topic.
I can buy that cultures tended to differ in Monotheism or Polytheism based on geography. Therefore they should not be upgrades of one another but both should still be represented as a civilization is introduced to differing opinions. I think the Civ4 tech tree is not linear so the techs may still be connected but not progressions of each other.
Sorry off-topic.
I can buy that cultures tended to differ in Monotheism or Polytheism based on geography. Therefore they should not be upgrades of one another but both should still be represented as a civilization is introduced to differing opinions. I think the Civ4 tech tree is not linear so the techs may still be connected but not progressions of each other.
ThePersian
Warlord
I did a hitorical study on this topic not too long ago.
The problem is that we must start viewing religion as a social/intelecual reasoning to understand its roots. Its inssuficiant to say god decided at one point poeple should belive in god. This was an intelectual understanding that was formed by people.
For a long time the phylithism was the ideals of much of the world. We had gods of fertility, war and so on. In this pertacular era higher intelecual member of the society noted a major flaw in this belife. Having more than one god caused corruption among the gods them self. The gods could not feel anger, hate or love becuse these are characteristics of humans. Making the Multi god theory impossible. Many intelecual members of the gerco-roman society started to belive that Zoose was the most powerful god and the only realistic one dominant over the elements of the world. The one god ideals were simply a socialistic move made by poeple. It made alot more sence to hvae one god which is not flawed than many gods that have very human flaws.
As you can see this ideaology was just labled diffrent things under some great leaders. Christ, MOhamid and Mosses are a number of great leaders which were able to prove this more stable philosophy to their people and creat devout fallowers.
This was an idiologoly labled under diffrent names. At the time it was a logical solution to an ever intelectual and socialy complex world that needed a place holder in the endelss passages of time to creat understanding and sence out of the world.
It is wrong to think of grouping these religons and playing them like pupets aginst eachother. The realistic truth to all religons is taht it was an intelectual answer to an age long problem. So Historicaly it is very inacurate to place Mono before Phylo becuse the corruption caused by Phylisim was the cause of Monoisim.
And to the Mongle question, they are an intristing people. Remember controling such large pecies of land is no easy tasks. The mongles use fear to win wars. They would control entire civilizations thought scaring any possible ideas about rebelion. To think that Mongols only hurt the Chinise is wrong, they would kill and skill large numbers of villiges and creat skull mounds (this caused the persian army as well as political corruption to not bother fighting the mongles.)
And to the question of Budisim. This was the cause of the Silk road. The silk road created much interaction between the Chinise and Indians. Hinduism (and its philosphy of an eternal life and the unimportance of suffering) was apealing to the chinise. The chinise by no means took all the indian belifes they formed a Budist belife that was entirely thier own.
One thing to keep in mind is that the world at the time was much more international then we might think. The romans had been trading with the Chinise for centuries,gold for silk. The mongols were aware of this. Since the Silk road was created who ever controled it held power and wealth. THe Mongles were well aware of teh riches that awaited them. They simply revenged against the chinise, their main goal was to creat riches for their sons for enternity and end Mongolias proverty. Their main goal from the start was to control the road and gain the welth of the west.
The problem is that we must start viewing religion as a social/intelecual reasoning to understand its roots. Its inssuficiant to say god decided at one point poeple should belive in god. This was an intelectual understanding that was formed by people.
For a long time the phylithism was the ideals of much of the world. We had gods of fertility, war and so on. In this pertacular era higher intelecual member of the society noted a major flaw in this belife. Having more than one god caused corruption among the gods them self. The gods could not feel anger, hate or love becuse these are characteristics of humans. Making the Multi god theory impossible. Many intelecual members of the gerco-roman society started to belive that Zoose was the most powerful god and the only realistic one dominant over the elements of the world. The one god ideals were simply a socialistic move made by poeple. It made alot more sence to hvae one god which is not flawed than many gods that have very human flaws.
As you can see this ideaology was just labled diffrent things under some great leaders. Christ, MOhamid and Mosses are a number of great leaders which were able to prove this more stable philosophy to their people and creat devout fallowers.
This was an idiologoly labled under diffrent names. At the time it was a logical solution to an ever intelectual and socialy complex world that needed a place holder in the endelss passages of time to creat understanding and sence out of the world.
It is wrong to think of grouping these religons and playing them like pupets aginst eachother. The realistic truth to all religons is taht it was an intelectual answer to an age long problem. So Historicaly it is very inacurate to place Mono before Phylo becuse the corruption caused by Phylisim was the cause of Monoisim.
And to the Mongle question, they are an intristing people. Remember controling such large pecies of land is no easy tasks. The mongles use fear to win wars. They would control entire civilizations thought scaring any possible ideas about rebelion. To think that Mongols only hurt the Chinise is wrong, they would kill and skill large numbers of villiges and creat skull mounds (this caused the persian army as well as political corruption to not bother fighting the mongles.)
And to the question of Budisim. This was the cause of the Silk road. The silk road created much interaction between the Chinise and Indians. Hinduism (and its philosphy of an eternal life and the unimportance of suffering) was apealing to the chinise. The chinise by no means took all the indian belifes they formed a Budist belife that was entirely thier own.
One thing to keep in mind is that the world at the time was much more international then we might think. The romans had been trading with the Chinise for centuries,gold for silk. The mongols were aware of this. Since the Silk road was created who ever controled it held power and wealth. THe Mongles were well aware of teh riches that awaited them. They simply revenged against the chinise, their main goal was to creat riches for their sons for enternity and end Mongolias proverty. Their main goal from the start was to control the road and gain the welth of the west.
Similar threads
