Roots of a Deity

[Stryder]

The following is my perception of what events could have unfolded to create only particular religions. I'm sure others stem from similar backgroundings.

From such humble beginnings as Athena, the personafication of Athens, or more recently Britannia personafication of Britian.
(Not to forget to mention cultures that can personify animals as gods)

I mention both of these to explain what could be the way things have snowballed from the past. A high "priest" of a particular shrine, makes a bunch of rules and beliefs for people to follow. People back then rather than saying you are a particular named relgion, personified their "religion".

In fact such personafication occured to include the stars, of which still to this day are particularly named constellations and The timing of the year also gave birth to the zodiac.

Many other things could be added together, a day of worship, (praying for lost souls in battle to find their way) perhaps offerings and music. Before you know it you have a personafication of a god that plays or listens to music, which patrons a particular crop, and is worshiped to harden those in battle or help them find their path.

There new found religions sculptured deities of both Greek and Roman mythology.

From this troubles aroused, especially with Rome. The Romans got to the point of accumilating a vast empire through conquest, and with each newly occupied region came the beliefs of the locals. This meant that the Roman mythology accumilated many new gods, and many different regions had different shrines.

The problem arose from these "Provinces" having their gods "argue", where one region might gain floods another would suffer drought and this would be perceived to be the work of the gods waring with one another.
This would cause the priests to encite their provinces to attack one another, which in turn caused unrest to the stability of Rome.

One religion that seemed to surround a man that was nothing more than a travelling story teller, captured the Roman Caesar eventually after many years of trying to irradicate it but inturned increased the peoples defiance.
The understanding that people were "unifying" unto one "god", was enough to help him decide that religion should be established.

Simply if all the provinces were to accept one "god" and one set of Fundemental rules, the provinces would stop fighting amoungst themselves and civil unrest would be less likely and the Caesars popularity in the known world would escalate to new heights.

Thats my explaination of gods and deities, nothing more than a singular personafication created for popularity and crowd control.

 

[dan1123]

That's kind of narrow

I'm not sure what you are describing. You say that you are trying to explain the origin of some religions (Christianity), but you describe pre-extisting religions causing problems, and then one religion rising up above them all. Is this a theory of survival of the fittest religion?

 

[Stryder]

Well in this instance, it wasn't the theory of survival of the fittest, but more to the fact that it was manipulated for the want of a country. Namely the caesar forced those particular religions into one, just because it was easier on his Reign.

I didn't mean to suggest there is only one correct religion, that would be wrong, this was just a particular example.

For instance an extension could look at other cultures and their religions, how how their regions had similar shrines and temples dedicated to personafication of animals, landscape or people.

In fact if you were to just look at the differing styles of Kung-fu, you could tell how so many different ways were assimilated to start with. Where as Karate could be the standardised version.
(Okay so I'm putting martial arts into the picture.)

 

[orthogonal]

Hey Stryder,

I've little doubt that religion has long served central authorities in the control and unification of their subjects.

BTW, despite the fact that the Romans generally went in for some nasty doings, one must admit they were a practical lot. They typically allowed conquered peoples within their empire to worship their own gods, provided they respect Roman religious holidays, etc. The Roman province of Judea is an example of such Roman "tolerance". However, the Christian's in-your-face attitude was destined to get up the wrong side of the Roman authorities. As the Christian god is a "jealous god", Christians refused to make even a show of accepting the Roman gods. Well, you know the rest.

Michael

 

[dan1123]

The rise of Christianity

I'd like to point out that the early rise of Christianity is a unique event in history. Never before or since has a religion risen up with such a force. You may argue that Christianity was just met by very good circumstances for religion. However, there were many other options with more followers than Christianity in Roman times, as already mentioned. So none of this really answers why Christianity rose up without state support to becoming the official religion of Rome, and not some other religion or philosophy, which nearly every possible option existed at the time.

Even atheism was an option, as evidenced by the Romans calling the Christians and Jews of the time "atheists" because they did not worship the Roman gods, yet atheism was not embraced.

So you may argue that it was the weakness of the poor from which Christianity got its converts. However, most converts of the time were from the Roman middle class and not the poor.

So why would a middle-class Roman who had plenty of choices for religion, with every type of temple or philosophy imaginable, instead choose Christianity? And not just one or two Romans, but enough to become such a force that the Caesar of the time would rather have them be the state religion rather than deal with the complexities of the others?

Of course, Christians would argue that it is because Jesus rose from the dead, and seen by many people of the time. Assuming this actually happened, it would be compelling enough to gather quite a following--especially if the followers could talk to several eyewitnesses of the event. But the rising from the dead thing is problematic for many here. So, what else would do it? And saying that the followers tricked others into joining Christianity isn't that satisfying because there were dozens of other groups trying to get a following by whatever means possible at the time as well.

 

[Stryder]

As I mentioned, Story-tellers amassed crowds that would follow them if they could tell the story well. It would be easy for a good story teller to amass a following, and as with most story tellers they would journey from place to place so their stories wouldn't wear thin.

I mention this as many greek playwrights also travelled to gain inspiration of stories, Story tellers would go on expeditions and journeys to the edge of the known world and come back with stories of prolific monsters and great battles of chivalry, just too keep people amused both during the journey and after it.

In fact making out that such events occured increased the curiousity of the people that heard such stories, so they would become apart of the next expedition to see for themselves.
Tall tales of feats out of this world (the raising of the dead, walking on water), would be enough to capture a persons attention if not a crowd.

If it truly caught such attention, then people would rush to neighbouring villages and the twon centres to express that their was a story teller telling such stories of such deeds, and they too would add their own pieces to the story through polymorphic whispers. (this is where a story gets passed on, and the reality lost through how it's told)

It was known that sailors would concoct such stories of battles and fights with the gods to remember the course they took with the stars on great voyages.

As with one religion conquering others, that is as I said a method that a Caesar would use to lower the problems of his society. Afterall, if a province went to war, it would strike him where it hurt... his pocket. The Caesar was reliant upon tributes to continue his life of splendor. He was reliant on peace within his provinces due to the fact that troops could be moved somewhere else (either to stop an uprising or claim more land)

This itself is notible to how the Romans left Britain in the early centuries A.D.

As for Atheism, Atheism breeds free thinkers, Philosophers and other scholars, because they choose to no longer be held by primative definitions given by another but choose to discover their own definition for themselves.

A society of free thinkers, is a society that should be peaceful not one of Tyranny. So to Rome, and their world build on order and disapline, Atheism would be percieved a threat to their stability.

(You might notice Atheism and "Athens" have the similarity of letters, I would guess this would add to my suspicion about "free thinking Atheists".)

 

[orthogonal]

Well spoken Stryder.

Dan1123, wrote:

...Christianity is a unique event in history. Never before or since has a religion risen up with such a force.

Hey Dan,

In his book Religion: An Anthropological View, A.F.C. Wallace estimates that there have been at least 100 thousand distinct religions created in the course of human history. Religion appears to have began with the Neanderthals. Since that time a thousand distinct human societies have existed, each with its own religion. These religions appear to change into a culturally distinct entity approximately every thousand years.

With 100,000 "old time" religions to choose from, I find your claim for the uniqueness of Christianity to be somewhat suspect. In any case, I've no doubt a Muslim might dispute your claim that, "never before...has a religion (i.e. Christianity) risen up with such a force." Islam appears to be sweeping the world like a tidal wave.

So none of this really answers why Christianity rose up without state support to becoming the official religion of Rome, and not some other religion or philosophy, which nearly every possible option existed at the time.

Of course Rome became Christian upon emperor Constantine's famous "in hoc signo vinces" conversion to Christianity after 306. Constantine was in the middle of a war a against his brother-in-law and co-emperor, Maxentius. Upon Constantine's conversion and subsequent victory, his Christianity was seen by him as something of a good luck charm. He tolerated the old Roman religions till around 330, when he stepped up a progressive campaign of surpression against non-Christian religions.

Dan, there doesn't seem anything mysterious about Rome's adoption of Christianity. It hinged upon one man's conversion, followed by his luck in the fortunes of war. Had Maxentius prevailed in battle, the world might have been very different.

The force of Christianity definitely shaped the course of early Western history. Whether this force was for the overall good of man is open to debate. When I'm feeling particularly generous, I allow that the good brought about by Christianity might have at least balanced its wickedness.

Michael