Monotheism and Pluralism

by Euphemism 8 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Euphemism

  Before post-modernism, when it was fashionable to talk about the 'great ideas' of 'civilization', monotheism was often represented as one of those ideas. And monotheism did indeed have significant benefits. It led to concepts of the universal brotherhood of man (siblinghood of humankind, if you want to be PC, I guess), universal ethics, etc.

  OTOH, monotheism has also been responsible for ideological intolerance. In the Roman Empire, priests and adherents of a wide variety of religions coexisted peacefully. And yet, when Christianity become the official religion of the Empire, members of the same religion persecuted each other over differences on a single point of theology (e.g. the Aryan controversies).

  Monotheism was also a force for political centralization and control. In Judah, when the people worshiped on hilltops and at local shrines, this was independent--one could almost say democratic--worship. But when religion was centralized at the temple in Jerusalem, power shifted into the hands of the king and the temple priesthood.

  When you think about it, polytheism is an awful lot like the modern concept of pluralism. We may not say that we believe in multiple Gods, but our society freely accepts worshipers of Jesus, YHWH, Allah, Buddha, etc. Couples from differing religions will get married without feeling that one of them has to convert to the other's faith. In large cities like New York, Passover and Yom Kippur are public holidays just as Christmas and Easter are. All in all, the religious situation doesn't seem that different from that of the Roman Empire.

  So was monotheism really a gain for society? Or was it actually a step backwards, taking us on a two-thousand-year detour away from pluralism?
• 

  Satanus

  So was monotheism really a gain for society? Or was it actually a step backwards, taking us on a two-thousand-year detour away from pluralism?

  It all depends on your view. The forces pushing civilization toward monotheism are also pushing it toward a one world society. There may also be a hidden pantheism pushing it in that direction. It's a mixing of cultures. Perhaps a one world culture is a stepping stone towards the ability for the majority to see that all are connected to dieity, the same one. It's a matter of viewpoint

  SS
• 

  franklin J

  this is a very interesting thread,

  Our society is SO much like ancient Rome. Our form of government is based on the Roman system; our way of life has so many parallels. Like ancient Rome; economy is the name of the game today, as much as it was 2,000 years ago in Rome. Polytheism may have been responsible for their tolerance of other beliefs. Their are the remains of all kinds of temples to all kinds of religious practices found in the Roman Forum; the political focus of ancient Rome.

  Monotheism did not work well for the Egyptian Ahkenaten; and he payed a very dear price for his radical beliefs.

  The Romans "tolerated" many faiths within their culture; being a world power, the tolerance was, to their thinking, a sign of their superiority. Early Christians of the first century had a passive, meek attitude ( perhaps because most of them were slaves anyway?) The Christianity of the 4th century after Constantine, became aggressive and warlike ( talk about crossover and polination of beliefs!)

  What caused the difference?

  The ancient polytheistic Romans were an expanding culture. They conquerd other lands and "civilized" them. They built roads; cities; waterways. They were not interested in converting the conquered lands inhabitants; only wanted a " tax" from them. Much to their credit; the Romans abolished infant sacrifice. That was the only religious practice that was not tolerated, to my knowledge.

  Rome after Constantine and "christianity" became a crazed split empire ( end of Classical Rome) ; hellbent on delivering the christian message and leading up to all kinds of warfare and needless bloodshed for "Christ". Think of the Crusades and Spansish Inquisition; all in the name of "converting mankind to monotheism and the belief in Christ". The Christianity of that time period not only conquered by the sword, they left devastation in their path and forced inhabitants to worship Christ. Perhaps that is why it is called "the Dark Ages". Temporal power by the Church was a dark time for humanity.

  Could the shift from polytheism to monotheism have had such an adverse reaction?

  Interesting premise.
• 

  Gollum

  Euphemism,

  Is this topic just a coincidence, or did you happen to pick up a new book?

  I ask this because at lunch today I just bought a new book out called ?God against the Gods: The history of the war between monotheism and polytheism?. I?m just getting started in it, but it raises many of these same questions, and seems to be pointing out that monotheism is not exactly an unmixed blessing.

  I?ll let you know what I think when I finish it, or at least have read a bit more.

  Gollum
• 

  peacefulpete

  The Christians as the Romans Saw Them, Is a good book recounting the Roman take on the Xtian intolerance. While the Romans in general valued diversity and saw strength in an ecclectic spiritual life, Xtians were viewed as dangerous, and antisocial by there narrow views and contempt for the religious views of others. Narrow interpretation and creed bound theology suppresses rational discussion and discovery and promotes fanaticism. (Any cult that regards the religion of all others as demonic and worthy of death, is a danger to society, then and now.) The Romans were especially uncomfortable with the "Faith" over reason mentality that this engendered. It makes for an intolerant, sectarian and stagnant society. Ironically it was the Roman dislike for their narrow mindedness that bloomed into suspicion and persecution. The very same intolerance naturally developed into a centralized hierchy that defined the creed. This consolidation of power was seen by later Emperors as tool for controling the masses. It proved to be unworkable and eventually created more division than tolerance likely would have produced.
• 

  Satanus

  pp

  This consolidation of power was seen by later Emperors as tool for controling the masses. It proved to be unworkable and eventually created more division than tolerance likely would have produced.

  It was a tool that was used along w militarism to pacify and, to an extent, unite europe. Do you think rome would have accomplished that without christianity? Bear in mind, that rome the state fell in the 4th century (i think), and rome the religion carried on where rome the state left off.

  SS
• 

  trumangirl

  I disagree, Euphemism. Pluralism is a political type system, it was developed as a political solution to disparate religions, guaranteeing freedom of religion as a universal right, and making religion and state separate, so that religions could co-exist within the polis.

  Also, there are tribal groups in the world who have traditionally animistic religions. Politically these groups are status-driven and non-democratic (ancient NZ Maori is an eg).

  I agree however that a polytheistic, non-pluralist society will be likely more tolerant of individuality than a monotheistic non-pluralist society. (the Vikings were polytheistic and respected individuality, but they had no respect for the rights of other peoples and practised slavery).

  Thanks for the thought-provoking thread.

  Trumangirl
• 

  peacefulpete

  SS..I understand and partially agree, the Persians (Nehemiah sent to bring worship of Ahuramazda to the Cannanites known as Judah) and the Greeks (Hellenization program of Alex. the Grt) as well sought to impose their religious norms upon the peoples they subjegated. However both systems were flexible. The Greek's henotheism easily accomodated the local representations of the deities, the Persians as well had no problem with calling the "High God" YHWH, Baal,Zeus, or AhuraMazda and accomodating the worship of lesser deities as agents of the high god. (That is in fact were many concepts of post Babylon Yahawhism came from.) The traditional Roman system was similar. Constantine recognized that growing Xtianity could not be so accomodating, he saw the divisive nature of creedal monotheism and acted to enforce a state recognized form to contain the problem. He found the syncretic proto-orthodox to have the greatest likelyhood to appease, with doctrines culled from Gnostic,Marcionite, and Jewish Xtianities. It did not last any longer than the militery could force it to work. Europe, untill the recent rise of secularism, has never had a time of peace since Xtianity's introduction. To this day it is the intolerance of the montheistic religions(Xtian,Jew,Muslim)that fuels the occassional violence. Europe has always been a bridge to clashing cultures because of geological and other reasons, so it is difficult to say what the history would have been like if things had developed differently. I am certain tho that intolerant religion has not promoted longterm peace.
• 

  Narkissos

  Post-modernity (or is it Ultra-modernity, criticizing modernity's assertions by modernity's questions?) is naturally fascinated by polytheism.

  Yet modern secularism, which actually involves at least practical atheism, historically grew on monotheistic, not polytheistic, soil.

  As if the divine had to pass through number One to reach number Zero.

  We could suspect an correlatively inverted evolution of the human individual subject:

  Under the Divine Many, the Human Subject was Nothing: the individual only existed as a member of a family, clan, tribe, nation -- and religion.

  Under the Divine One (the monotheistic "God" or its modern avatars, such as the "Universal observer" of scientism), the Human Subject had to be One: Adam, Christ, Man, Mankind.

  Under (or over) the Divine Nought (which is not exactly a negation of the Divine), the human subject might eventually become its own absolute, even transcending its own biological basis (the individual).

  I'm not sure though it can afford to be anymore tolerant of other views than the previous Western stage (religious or secularist monotheism): for instance, we do not feel like accepting what we see as an encroachment on human rights by a polytheistic or monotheistic society.

  Reminds Goethe's famous statement: "As a moralist I am a monotheist;
  as an artist I am a polytheist; and as a naturalist I am a pantheist." Can we really surpass that?