polytheism vs. monotheism

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-02-07 07:27am

Many of you may have noted, during the course of your education, that the development of monotheism is apparently regarded by many as an advance in human civilization. There is a sort of tacit assumption by most people that polytheism is a characteristic of primitive peoples, and that monotheism is an advance over this. It seems to me that this is simply the bias of a monotheistic (i.e. mostly Christian society). I wonder how many people have ever really thought about it.

Consider that the pagan Greeks, Romans, Celts, Norse, indeed every pagan, polytheistic culture of Europe that I am aware of, was almost entirely lacking in missionary spirit, and were all thus quite tolerant of other religions - at times even assimilating the gods of other cultures into their own pantheons. Polytheistic religions apparently never regarded themselves as the "one true path".

Consider further that during the halcyon days of the Roman Republic, and Roman Empire, when Latin and Greek culture spread all over the Mediterranean basin, and there was a fairly large class of educated, cultured men, most men of real intellect and education were, in fact, atheists. Romans such as Lucretius, Cicero, Seneca, and many, many others were essentially atheists. They payed lip service to Jupiter and the gods of the Roman state religion, but invested no real belief in any of them. Basically, living in a society with no strong religious spirit, even in that superstitious age, they found it easy to shed belief in the supernatural once they acquired an education. Contrast that with many prominent figures of our own society who are both highly educated and deeply religious.

What might have Europe have been like if Christianity had not arisen, Judaism had not spread beyond the eastern Mediterranean, and no other monotheistic, eastern mystery religions had risen to predominance either? Would advances in science and technology have ocurred sooner perhaps? And might people in general have come to a secular, rational, humanistic worldview once education became more general and widespread, given the lack of religious and missionary zeal in polytheistic societies?

As I said, most people seem to regard monotheism as an advance in human civilization. I think it may very likely be just the opposite: a giant step backward.

Solid Snake · Post by **Solid Snake** » 2003-02-07 08:37am

Polytheism is much better than monotheism.
Just compare the morality of Wicca to the Morality of Christianity!

W: Do whatever you feel like, as long as it dosnt hurt anyone else or yourself
C: Follow 10 rules, or burn in hell.

W:Worship any god or goddess you feel is right for you.
C:Worship one god, and his son, or burn in hell

W: A girl's first period is celebrated
C: It is something sinful and to be ashamed of

W:No Hell.
C: You have a 99.9% chance of eternal torture

And there you have it.

ArthurDent · Post by **ArthurDent** » 2003-02-07 09:32am

Well, I actually think that monotheism doesn't really exist in Christianity unless you believe that God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are one in the same...which I don't. So if God the Father and God the Son are two different people, then there's more than one God. But I'm a bit different on that end of things anyway...

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-02-07 09:36am

ArthurDent wrote:Well, I actually think that monotheism doesn't really exist in Christianity unless you believe that God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are one in the same...which I don't. So if God the Father and God the Son are two different people, then there's more than one God. But I'm a bit different on that end of things anyway...

That's not plurality; that's nepotism.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-02-07 09:41am

Monotheism has an innate tendency toward intolerance because of the simple fact that it permits only one God. The existence of any other god is, by definition, an affront to its beliefs.

As for Perinquus' question, it's difficult to say what would have happened, although we can certainly say that the incredible waste of time and life represented by the Crusades and Inquisitions would not have happened. Womens' rights would probably be better (say what you will about womens' rights under Hinduism or Buddhism, but no one ever equalled the misogynism of Islam and Christianity at their peak). Gay rights would have been immeasurably better; the Romans and Greeks were quite tolerant of that, whereas the Christians and Muslims made it into a sin and many of them still do today.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2003-02-07 09:50am

it´s better to be under a government with doesnt exist of ONE person. same with gods.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-02-07 11:35am

Solidsnake, you cna't just compare an example of each and come to the conclusion that all polythiestic religions are better than monotheism.

The Imperial Romans, IIRC, were always bastards, regardless of religion.

- not defending montheism, BTW.

Darth Gojira · Post by **Darth Gojira** » 2003-02-07 12:13pm

NObody expects the Buddhist inquisition! Our main weapon is tolerance, tolerance and moderation. 2, 2 main weapons. Tolerance, moderation, and incredible luck.3, three main weapons. Our three main weapons consist of tolerance, moderation, luck, and an almost believable idea of an illusionary universe. Four, four.....we'll come again.

I rest my case for the "superiority" of monotheism.

Sektor31 · Post by **Sektor31** » 2003-02-07 01:21pm

Monotheism certainly isn't an "advance", rather a change in global society. It just so happens that one religion became more prominent than others. Christianity has done a few -good- things though, as much as I hate to admit it, like ending the Aztec human sacrifice ritual.

lgot · Post by **lgot** » 2003-02-07 10:22pm

Many of you may have noted, during the course of your education, that the development of monotheism is apparently regarded by many as an advance in human civilization.

Yes, that is a result of Social Darwinism aplication.
The 19th century europeans are more civilizated (thefore superior) and monotheists.
Then they saw the first civilizations, africans (less superior) politheists and full of nature cults. The next stage is the greek-roman politheism then the monotheism catholic. Pure europocentrist imperialist typical idea of the 19th century...

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-02-07 10:23pm

Heathens! ALLAH will strike you all down!

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-02-08 12:27am

I really think it has to do with the doctrine of the religion, and not the number of gods, and the religions with the more intolerant doctrines happen to be monotheistic. I think it's a coincedence.

lgot · Post by **lgot** » 2003-02-08 12:38am

the european version of Christianism is for sure extremely intolerant. The Chritianism here in Brazil for example is very tolerant and live side by side with Macumba and Candoble (african modern religions with basis similar to the Vodoo)...And there is polytheists people who killed the other gods followers because they belonged to a society not tolerant...Shame on Christians Institutions that have a huge backgroud of belonging to intolerant societies and supporting it.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-02-08 12:38am

Darth Wong wrote:Monotheism has an innate tendency toward intolerance because of the simple fact that it permits only one God. The existence of any other god is, by definition, an affront to its beliefs.

As for Perinquus' question, it's difficult to say what would have happened, although we can certainly say that the incredible waste of time and life represented by the Crusades and Inquisitions would not have happened. Womens' rights would probably be better (say what you will about womens' rights under Hinduism or Buddhism, but no one ever equalled the misogynism of Islam and Christianity at their peak). Gay rights would have been immeasurably better; the Romans and Greeks were quite tolerant of that, whereas the Christians and Muslims made it into a sin and many of them still do today.

At least in the case of Brahminism, I'm sure that the widows Sir Charles Napier saved from the suttee would disagree with you. Of course, the sheer pervasive power of the Brahmin had some influence on the rise of Buddhism, an unusual tolerant religious philosophy in any case.

Personally a Neo-Platonic society and the eventually evolution thereof would have been preferable in the place of Christianity - and it would have retarded for the most part the rise of Islam, I would think - But the results when Rome fell might have been less pleasant.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-02-08 12:41am

Duchess, I couldn't help but notice your encylopediac knowledge on all subjects, so I must ask: What exactly is it that you do for a living? I'm thinking it must be somewhere between college professor and Ancient Oracle of Zod.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-02-08 01:20am

HemlockGrey wrote:Duchess, I couldn't help but notice your encylopediac knowledge on all subjects, so I must ask: What exactly is it that you do for a living? I'm thinking it must be somewhere between college professor and Ancient Oracle of Zod.

High and Almighty Disciple of the God Google Lord of Information?

Monotheisim is inherintly less tolerant as it require one God...hence...one truth.....one path....one way....

Polytheisim tends to be more tolerant as there is enough leway you can eventually manage to figure everything else into the context of something you already have.....for example the roman practice of simply merging local gods and godesses into thier pantheon....the only place it didnt really work was....suprise suprise....israel.....

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2003-02-08 01:33am

I think Monotheism is much better then Polytheism in that there is only one god left to get rid of.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-02-08 01:37am

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:I think Monotheism is much better then Polytheism in that there is only one god left to get rid of.

Most pantheons of gods are a bit less objectionable....none of them are put forward as being all powerful and perfect....they are all usually screwed up in some way....plus they make for way better stories

THEHOOLIGANJEDI · Post by **THEHOOLIGANJEDI** » 2003-02-09 09:55pm

The Problems with Polythieism is that in all instances that the Gods are to subjective and arrogant and very oppresive. I wouldn't want to believe such gods.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-02-09 09:59pm

THEHOOLIGANJEDI wrote:The Problems with Polythieism is that in all instances that the Gods are to subjective and arrogant and very oppresive. I wouldn't want to believe such gods.

And monotheist gods aren't?

THEHOOLIGANJEDI · Post by **THEHOOLIGANJEDI** » 2003-02-09 10:06pm

AdmiralKanos wrote:
THEHOOLIGANJEDI wrote:The Problems with Polythieism is that in all instances that the Gods are to subjective and arrogant and very oppresive. I wouldn't want to believe such gods.
And monotheist gods aren't?

Well I'm a deist. So I think the God I believe in is Beyond evil. The rest of you can have your cynical opinion on what God is. I respect that, even though I disagree.

SyntaxVorlon · Post by **SyntaxVorlon** » 2003-02-09 10:20pm

Hinduism is a modern polytheist society, and though rapt in turmoil and conflict with the pakistanis, they have not started being Holier than Thou.

And some of you forgot Socrates, who was killed for Heresy, though this may be a modernized version. Anybody a philosophy major?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-02-09 10:29pm

THEHOOLIGANJEDI wrote:
AdmiralKanos wrote:
THEHOOLIGANJEDI wrote:The Problems with Polythieism is that in all instances that the Gods are to subjective and arrogant and very oppresive. I wouldn't want to believe such gods.
And monotheist gods aren't?
Well I'm a deist. So I think the God I believe in is Beyond evil. The rest of you can have your cynical opinion on what God is. I respect that, even though I disagree.

Actually, I'm of the opinion that God is a fantasy and reflects the traits of his creators. Since humans who desire power and control are arrogant and oppressive many times, God is, as well, since he always just happens to be on their side.

Perinquus wrote:Many of you may have noted, during the course of your education, that the development of monotheism is apparently regarded by many as an advance in human civilization. There is a sort of tacit assumption by most people that polytheism is a characteristic of primitive peoples, and that monotheism is an advance over this. It seems to me that this is simply the bias of a monotheistic (i.e. mostly Christian society). I wonder how many people have ever really thought about it.

Don't be so negative about it. It actually gives hope for a great, godless future! You see, if monotheism is the result of civilization's advancement, then we can generally conclude that as humanity advances, the number of gods we believe in will decrease. So, once we've advanced enough, we'll have simply phased out theistic beliefs entirely.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-02-10 01:42am

SyntaxVorlon wrote:Hinduism is a modern polytheist society, and though rapt in turmoil and conflict with the pakistanis, they have not started being Holier than Thou.

How many Hindus do you know? It's entirely possible for them to get HtT. Usually not quite as bad as conservative Christianity, but they do.

Monotheism dates back to the axial age anyway. Within one generation lived Lao-Tzu, Confucius, the writers of the Upanishads who altered Hinduism from a polytheism to a Brahmanic monotheism, Gautama, Socrates, and the Jewish Prophets. This is also roughly the same time as the life of Zarathustra. This suggests an incredible exchange of ideas across a wide area, with the lands from Greece to India seeing monotheistic ideas emerge within 50 years. Gore Vidal's novel Creation is said to be a quite good fictional representation of this period, though I haven't read it myself.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-02-10 01:54am

SyntaxVorlon wrote:Hinduism is a modern polytheist society, and though rapt in turmoil and conflict with the pakistanis, they have not started being Holier than Thou.

Do you have any knowledge of modern Hinduism? There's a Hindu National-Religious party controlling India right now and Muslims and Hindus regularly have fights in that country, complete with the burning alive of hundreds of Muslims and other fun stuff.

India is relatively stable, and it heats up sometimes, but it has gotten worse recently. The problem is that Brahminism had to establish a structure similiar to most monotheistic religions to survive. Effectively, there is only one Hindu God, with countless aspects.

It's worked, but the stratified priestly caste and popularity of the warrior and more violent gods has been the downside. Hinduism may not be an aggressively proselytizing religion, but it vigorously defends the strength it has.

P.S. I am Her Grace the Duchess Valencia, Countess Hapsburg, Countess Szeged, and that is sufficient explanation.