Polytheism vs Monotheism

M

Michael

歌舞伎
Valued Senior Member
Not so much polytheism -vs- monotheism BUT I was thinking of the polytheists in the Roman Empire. If one were to go to the large multicultural cities, say like, Alexandria. There you would find Temples to various Gods. All working to serve YOU. You didn't serve them, not really, they served you. They tried to get your patronage. This means people go about their daily lives, working and economically prospering without much worrying about the Gods. When they do go to a Temple, it's usually because they want a blessing. They pay their bit, get some magic water, and say their prayer off they go.

Compare this with monotheism. Where YOU serve the God. All day long ... you observe your penance, you only eat what the God says is OK to eat, you worry and pray (in some cases this too is mandatory), and you hope the God likes you well enough and doesn't send you to hell ... in essence YOU'RE the slave to the God. You're a mental slave to the priests of this God.



Think about the different roles these two different religous classes are gong to occupy in society - it's two very different situations. In one they are a servant in the other they are your master.

And, this is what we see in theocratic societies. Even today.



Anyway, it was just a thought I had. It seems to me, that this is another example of where polytheism fits in better with society.



Michael II
 
You minimize the serving of polygods & omit worship. It does seem tho to be much more with monogods.
Another thing I always pondered: Everything we know of we see more than 1. How can people think god would be an exception?
 
Except self :) maybe that's it :p

I think there is a similarity b/w modern Japanese Shinto religion and polyGods in the Roman Empire. In that, the Gods serve you.

Funny that, perhaps Japan, being a small set of island, as a nation, didn't have the resources to indulge in monotheism. The Japanese are a pragmatic people.

Michael
 
I'm not quite as certainas you that polytheists did/do not serve their gods.
As I understood it, the Romans feared the wrath of some of their gods and regularly made sacrifices and offerings to please them and win their favor.
 
Think of a gladiatorial match, a triumphant, etc.. yes, they begin with a sacrifice to the gods (which they then probably roasted and ate). Done and done.

Now think about a city like Alexandria, most people weren't even Citizens and certainly not Romans. They were inundated with many new gods, new priests, new temples, all working the crowd for their patronage. THAT was the magic of the times.

They worked for the people.
In monotheism the people work for them.
 
Perhaps this is why, post Christiandom, Europeans once again revitalized and have the freed up resources to rapidly progress - much like at the time of the Roman empire?

Anyway, it's just a thought that popped into my mind on way to the toilet. . . . .
 
I think it may have some merit and I've never heard of it before. anyone ever hear of it. Maybe we can make a new branch of study. Religious Economics as a rigorous discipline. Could be an interesting PhD topic..... I expect an authorship :)
 
My money would be on Durga and Kali.

What about Ahura Mazda vs Loki and Odin?
 
Or how about Wäinämöinen, he did bring back The Sun from the Underworld, so at least all
the Sun worshippers are debt to him big time ;)
 
This is silly. In monotheistic christianity, God has set limits on us to help us, not enslave us. We ask things of him, and if they are part of his plan, he will grant them. If not, the answer will be no.

Are you suggesting that the Roman "God" Nero did not basically enslave his people? That the Greek deity Zeus somehow acted to benefit his followers? If so, how so?
 
Mr. Hamtastic said:
This is silly. In monotheistic christianity, God has set limits on us to help us, not enslave us. We ask things of him, and if they are part of his plan, he will grant them. If not, the answer will be no.

Are you suggesting that the Roman "God" Nero did not basically enslave his people? That the Greek deity Zeus somehow acted to benefit his followers? If so, how so?
Click to expand...

I think there is a fundamental difference between the monotheisms and the multi-god systems. In the monotheisms you tend to be taught that part of you is bad and that God is perfect and you must be a kind of surrogate God in relation to the bad portions of yourself. In the pagan systems the gods themselves were less than perfect, had foibles and did naughty and childish shit.

so the relationship with them did not involve the kinds of self-hatred and self-imprisonment demanded in the monotheisms.
 
It appears to me that having imperfect Gods leads to having more thoroughly corrupt followers, especially if those followers are zealous. I do agree with your distinction, however. The guilt from being less than what God wants can be quite taxing at times. I'm not sure what you mean by self-imprisonment. I wasn't aware that that was demanded, then again, I am not a scholar of world religion by any means.
 
Mr. Hamtastic said:
It appears to me that having imperfect Gods leads to having more thoroughly corrupt followers, especially if those followers are zealous. I do agree with your distinction, however. The guilt from being less than what God wants can be quite taxing at times. I'm not sure what you mean by self-imprisonment. I wasn't aware that that was demanded, then again, I am not a scholar of world religion by any means.
Click to expand...
My sense is that corruption seems pretty widely spread in all big religions. As far as self imprisonment...
generally speaking sexual feelings and urge
certain emotions
resistance to authority
certain kinds of questioning
and freedom of action in general
are to be 'kept inside'.

One becomes a kind of by proxy jailer for oneself or portions therein.

(me no scholar either, by the way. decent amount of life experience and reading and conversing and visiting and trying out)
 
Michael said:
Not so much polytheism -vs- monotheism BUT I was thinking of the polytheists in the Roman Empire. If one were to go to the large multicultural cities, say like, Alexandria. There you would find Temples to various Gods. All working to serve YOU. You didn't serve them, not really, they served you. They tried to get your patronage. This means people go about their daily lives, working and economically prospering without much worrying about the Gods. When they do go to a Temple, it's usually because they want a blessing. They pay their bit, get some magic water, and say their prayer off they go.

Compare this with monotheism. Where YOU serve the God. All day long ... you observe your penance, you only eat what the God says is OK to eat, you worry and pray (in some cases this too is mandatory), and you hope the God likes you well enough and doesn't send you to hell ... in essence YOU'RE the slave to the God. You're a mental slave to the priests of this God.



Think about the different roles these two different religous classes are gong to occupy in society - it's two very different situations. In one they are a servant in the other they are your master.

And, this is what we see in theocratic societies. Even today.



Anyway, it was just a thought I had. It seems to me, that this is another example of where polytheism fits in better with society.



Michael II
Click to expand...

So you think polytheists like the Greeks and Romans were more advanced than the Christians, Muslims and Jews?
 
Michael said:
Not so much polytheism -vs- monotheism BUT I was thinking of the polytheists in the Roman Empire. If one were to go to the large multicultural cities, say like, Alexandria. There you would find Temples to various Gods. All working to serve YOU. You didn't serve them, not really, they served you. They tried to get your patronage. This means people go about their daily lives, working and economically prospering without much worrying about the Gods. When they do go to a Temple, it's usually because they want a blessing. They pay their bit, get some magic water, and say their prayer off they go.

Compare this with monotheism. Where YOU serve the God. All day long ... you observe your penance, you only eat what the God says is OK to eat, you worry and pray (in some cases this too is mandatory), and you hope the God likes you well enough and doesn't send you to hell ... in essence YOU'RE the slave to the God. You're a mental slave to the priests of this God.

Think about the different roles these two different religous classes are gong to occupy in society - it's two very different situations. In one they are a servant in the other they are your master.

And, this is what we see in theocratic societies. Even today.

Anyway, it was just a thought I had. It seems to me, that this is another example of where polytheism fits in better with society.
Click to expand...

*************
M*W: Thanks for the insightful explanation of the purposes of gods.
 
Anyway, it was just a thought I had. It seems to me, that this is another example of where polytheism fits in better with society.
Click to expand...

An individual either believes something or they don't; you can't force polytheism on modern society because you think it is less restricting. If you are a true monotheist, then you believe that you are praying/observing important dates/fasting/wearing a headscarf because it is what God intends for you to do. Religion loses the little purpose it has if it is customised to fit the follower.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top