|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 7:02 am
I've been reading this book lately ( God against the Gods: The History of the War Between Monotheism and Polytheism) and it proposes some ideas that are worth discussing in this guild. While I can't give a direct quote as the book isn't in front of me at the moment, indirectly, this book proposes the idea that 'religious intolerance was born with the advent of Monotheism.' The early Monotheists, after all, believed that theirs was not just one God, but the only true God and that all other Gods and Goddesses were false. What do you think of this statement? Was religious intolerance born with the advent of Monotheism or is it the exclusivism that came along with it? How does this kind of exclusivism play into the modern setting? Has it been tempered enough with inclusivism and pluralism that we can have Monotheistic systems side by side with tolerance?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:05 pm
That's an interesting point. ^_^
I'm no history buff, but I'm pretty sure that wars were being fought over religion before monotheism. Or at the very least they used religion as a way to pump their troops up, like in Rome or Ancient Greece.
Like all wars though, I think even wars in the name of a god was over land and money. They just used religion as a backing, and unfortunately the monotheist followers were more fanatical about their god. I think that's why they used religion to fight more after monotheism.
Just my 2 cents though. I didn't do any research, I'm just himhawing. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:35 pm
One thing this particular book mentioned that I thought was interesting was that the Roman persecution of Christians really was not at its base, because of religion. Christians were seen as a security risk since they refused absolutely to acknowledge the Roman deities. Honoring the Roman deities was at the time seen to be an act required to ensure the security of the state. All they asked was that the Christians engage in this civic duty; then they could go on and worship their one God all they liked.
Even more amusingly, the Romans accused Christians of similar things that Christians now accuse Neopagans of. Because early Christianity was underground, rituals had to be held in private homes (much like most Neopagan rituals) and that of course invites all sorts of rumors and suspicions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 9:40 am
Starlock One thing this particular book mentioned that I thought was interesting was that the Roman persecution of Christians really was not at its base, because of religion. Christians were seen as a security risk since they refused absolutely to acknowledge the Roman deities. Honoring the Roman deities was at the time seen to be an act required to ensure the security of the state. All they asked was that the Christians engage in this civic duty; then they could go on and worship their one God all they liked. Even more amusingly, the Romans accused Christians of similar things that Christians now accuse Neopagans of. Because early Christianity was underground, rituals had to be held in private homes (much like most Neopagan rituals) and that of course invites all sorts of rumors and suspicions. That's really interesting. I'd never heard that before. I'll have to check out that book.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 6:05 pm
I'm not sure. I can imagine that before monotheistic religions, some practitioners of polytheistic religions viewed other religions as false or wrong and could have been entirely intolerant of them. Even though a religion has many gods the fact still remains that other religions worship gods that the other religion does not believe in as well as have practices that they do not agree with or like
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 12:09 pm
Dumna I'm not sure. I can imagine that before monotheistic religions, some practitioners of polytheistic religions viewed other religions as false or wrong and could have been entirely intolerant of them. Even though a religion has many gods the fact still remains that other religions worship gods that the other religion does not believe in as well as have practices that they do not agree with or like It's possible, but overall that's not what the work indicates. There was a fair degree of syncreticism when new systems were encountered. deities braught in from other cultures were adapted and melded into the existing system. So not believing in other cultures' gods wasn't so much of an issue. However, when monotheism came about and said all the many gods were false gods, that... really can't be reconciled well. sweatdrop That's not to say polytheism as a system is or was perfect. It isn't. While there wasn't so much in terms of religious intolerance, there were, as with any culture, other areas of intolerance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 5:49 pm
The root of the issue doesn't really lie in any of the religions themselves, per se, but the followers. Every religion on the planet has some version of a rule of reciprocity, or the Golden Rule, and most are largely peaceful, by the teachings or original texts. The issue arises when followers don't apply the Rule or teachings of peace to non-practitioners. Somewhere the fact that people that practice other religions are still people slips their minds. Or they decide that the Rule means that if people of a particular religion have been rude to them in the past, they can now be so to others of that religion. (Which, in true, philosophical Satanism is indeed the case. "If a man strikes you upon one cheek, smite him upon the other." But anyway) It also comes down to a lack of respect for others' decisions regarding their own lives. A religion is a personal choice. If a person is doing you no harm in practicing their chosen one, let it be. This doesn't mean you can't share information on yours with them, or engage in respectful debate or discussion on either one, but just that NEITHER of you should be stuffing it in anyone's face. (source of information is here, by the way. Running a quick search will take you to the specific pages)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 2:24 pm
Humans I think, use religions as a excuse. Humans are the same everywhere and have the same feelings no matter where you go. Thus, we have the anger gene. Everyone has it, from the U.S to Australia. Then we add in other people that are different. In this toxic mix, the two take sides and battle it out. One of these differences, you guessed it, is religion. During the crusades, the Christians won but that went against their religious principals. Do they care? No, because they thought they did the right thing by listening to the anger gene. It surpassed religion and the anger gene was the thing that was guiding them. The anger gene isn't bad, in fact, if you want to get somewhere, you have to listen to it somewhat. If you take it to the extreme, like killing people, you are out of control.
This concludes my opinion on why people get in religious wars.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 4:19 pm
ffdarkangel Humans I think, use religions as a excuse. Humans are the same everywhere and have the same feelings no matter where you go. Thus, we have the anger gene. Everyone has it, from the U.S to Australia. Then we add in other people that are different. In this toxic mix, the two take sides and battle it out. One of these differences, you guessed it, is religion. During the crusades, the Christians won but that went against their religious principals. Do they care? No, because they thought they did the right thing by listening to the anger gene. It surpassed religion and the anger gene was the thing that was guiding them. The anger gene isn't bad, in fact, if you want to get somewhere, you have to listen to it somewhat. If you take it to the extreme, like killing people, you are out of control. This concludes my opinion on why people get in religious wars. While I'm not sure I agree with the principle of an 'anger gene' (at least if you're speaking literally; a quality like anger is probably influenced by multiple genes in addition to social molding) but I do agree with the basis of what you're saying. Difference (religious or otherwise) may be the starting ground for disagreements and problems, but what really carries it on isn't neccesarily religious, but something like anger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 7:27 pm
Starlock ffdarkangel Humans I think, use religions as a excuse. Humans are the same everywhere and have the same feelings no matter where you go. Thus, we have the anger gene. Everyone has it, from the U.S to Australia. Then we add in other people that are different. In this toxic mix, the two take sides and battle it out. One of these differences, you guessed it, is religion. During the crusades, the Christians won but that went against their religious principals. Do they care? No, because they thought they did the right thing by listening to the anger gene. It surpassed religion and the anger gene was the thing that was guiding them. The anger gene isn't bad, in fact, if you want to get somewhere, you have to listen to it somewhat. If you take it to the extreme, like killing people, you are out of control. This concludes my opinion on why people get in religious wars. While I'm not sure I agree with the principle of an 'anger gene' (at least if you're speaking literally; a quality like anger is probably influenced by multiple genes in addition to social molding) but I do agree with the basis of what you're saying. Difference (religious or otherwise) may be the starting ground for disagreements and problems, but what really carries it on isn't neccesarily religious, but something like anger. Yep, exactly. I don't know what exactly causes anger, give me a break, I'm not even in high school yet but the effects of anger are plain as day. We get crimes and other stuff in the world. I don't think anger is bad, you need it in the world so you don't get ripped off. If you kept forgiving people instantly, you wouldn't know how to avoid it in the first place. This comes from me daydreaming in math class. sweatdrop I really need to stop doing that but the teacher is so boring. Well, at least my brain is working! biggrin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 7:23 pm
ffdarkangel Yep, exactly. I don't know what exactly causes anger, give me a break, I'm not even in high school yet but the effects of anger are plain as day. We get crimes and other stuff in the world. I don't think anger is bad, you need it in the world so you don't get ripped off. If you kept forgiving people instantly, you wouldn't know how to avoid it in the first place. This comes from me daydreaming in math class. sweatdrop I really need to stop doing that but the teacher is so boring. Well, at least my brain is working! biggrin I think there can be distinctions between types of forgiveness. Forgiveness doesn't mean you forget that someone did something you didn't agree with (hence you'd probably still have an idea of how to avoid it), it is usually more about not holding grudges, giving people second chances, and not being a revenge-seeking sap. Other times it might be just a facade someone puts up and is not genuine at all. The concept of forgiveness probably came into play quite a bit during the early conflicts between monotheistic and polytheistic systems. Wonder how history'd be different if there had been a bit more of that on both sides? neutral
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 11:57 am
Starlock ffdarkangel Yep, exactly. I don't know what exactly causes anger, give me a break, I'm not even in high school yet but the effects of anger are plain as day. We get crimes and other stuff in the world. I don't think anger is bad, you need it in the world so you don't get ripped off. If you kept forgiving people instantly, you wouldn't know how to avoid it in the first place. This comes from me daydreaming in math class. sweatdrop I really need to stop doing that but the teacher is so boring. Well, at least my brain is working! biggrin I think there can be distinctions between types of forgiveness. Forgiveness doesn't mean you forget that someone did something you didn't agree with (hence you'd probably still have an idea of how to avoid it), it is usually more about not holding grudges, giving people second chances, and not being a revenge-seeking sap. Other times it might be just a facade someone puts up and is not genuine at all. The concept of forgiveness probably came into play quite a bit during the early conflicts between monotheistic and polytheistic systems. Wonder how history'd be different if there had been a bit more of that on both sides? neutral Probably more people would be alive in Japan if we didn't bomb them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
