Why is it so difficult for monotheism followers to accept polytheism?
I am from polytheistic culture and for me to accept someone else’s GOD is very easy. I look at them and think nothing about their god and accept it at their face value, but when it comes to polytheistic beliefs what I get is how wrong it is to believe in so many gods and what kind of hells I will be facing because I did not know the one and only true god. What makes these monotheism followers want to passionately convert me into their faiths. Some go as far as telling me as my religion or my gods are not told in this final version of god’s revelation therefore I better convert to their religion and so on. What do you guys think?

Why is it so difficult for monotheism followers to accept polytheism?
I am from polytheistic culture and for me to accept someone else’s GOD is very easy. I look at them and think nothing about their god and accept it at their face value, but when it comes to polytheistic beliefs what I get is how wrong it is to believe in so many gods and what kind of hells I will be facing because I did not know the one and only true god. What makes these monotheism followers want to passionately convert me into their faiths. Some go as far as telling me as my religion or my gods are not told in this final version of god’s revelation therefore I better convert to their religion and so on. What do you guys think?

I like to think that somewhere in the cosmos is a rest home for all the old gods. Thor and Zeus are there along with Zoroaster and Hermes. All the gods of olden times are gathered together where they sit around on the front porch and talk about their days of glory.

Now, however, in the last 5,000 years or so, we say that we finally have gotten it right. Our "new kid on the block" god is the correct one and is supreme to all others before or after . . . . and there will probably be others after.

Why is it so difficult for monotheism followers to accept polytheism?
I am from polytheistic culture and for me to accept someone else’s GOD is very easy. I look at them and think nothing about their god and accept it at their face value

but when it comes to polytheistic beliefs what I get is how wrong it is to believe in so many gods and what kind of hells I will be facing because I did not know the one and only true god. What makes these monotheism followers want to passionately convert me into their faiths. Some go as far as telling me as my religion or my gods are not told in this final version of god’s revelation therefore I better convert to their religion and so on. What do you guys think?

Believe what you want and follow your own path or that of your own culture. As a follower of a monotheistic deity, that is the God of the Bible and the God of the ancient Israelites, I can tell you for fact the Bible says that those who follow the Bible will be judged by it, and those who choose not to will be judged by their own conscience, so if anyone is a good person, myself as a Christian believes they will be in heaven for the Bible tells me so. It is about if their own conscience judges them guilty or not. The belief in God, the Word, and wanting to have the Spirit inside of me as a real and valid experience and not just something to say but never ever feel it is what helps me with working out my own salvation.

Hi, Prisha.

How, as a polytheist (Hindu, perhaps?), are you able to uncritically accept someone else's God, for instance Allah, which by definition is the only God? You must have to consciously 'remove' characteristics from that deity which make it incompatible with your own beliefs before you can accept it into your own pantheon, and that's not acceptance 'at face value', surely?

Yes, in a sense broadly speaking i accept Allah like any other god. i have no problem accepting him/it as one of the gods and i will have a problem if it is the only god. my idea of him being the 'parabrahma/parashakti/brahman' (omni everything) is not same though. My parabrahma does not involve in mundane matters at all. he is there in everything and he is everything. he/it will not involve in judging, providing, taking care of anything. This is the whole point in having multiple gods. each is incharge of something and day to day administration of mortals lives. it might sound funny to people who have only one god concept but to people like me it makes a whole lot of sense with clear demarkations. if at all people want to ask god for something for me i know clearly whom to ask depending on my desire and who is incharge of that department.



Yeah it's one of the more irritating characteristics of the various monotheistic Gods that their respective followers have to go around trying to ensnare others to become followers too. I think it's part and parcel of how that God historically ended up as the 'only' God - "the Lord thy God is a jealous God".

Hi Clovis,

I was just hoping you could elaborate a little on this. I don't want to detract too much from the thread, but I've seen you post this statement a couple of times, and I was just wondering where exactly in the Bible you have found it it says that people will be judged according to their own consciences. I'm not saying it's not there, but I can't recall a section off the top of my head. If you could help me out, that would be great.

All the best

Romans 2:12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15 since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

Romans 14:20 Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. 21 It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble. 22 The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.

My view - polytheists believe many gods exist. Therefore, they believe there are many paths. It would be very easy for a polytheist to accept one God among many. Monotheists on the other hand believe in only one God, and therefore only one path. For those not believing in that one particular God, the path they take leads away from God. Polytheists accepting monotheist deities is just an extension of their own beliefs. For a monotheist to accept polytheist ideas is to totally move against their worldview.

That's my view, at least

Why is it so difficult for monotheism followers to accept polytheism?
I am from polytheistic culture and for me to accept someone else's GOD is very easy. I look at them and think nothing about their god and accept it at their face value, but when it comes to polytheistic beliefs what I get is how wrong it is to believe in so many gods and what kind of hells I will be facing because I did not know the one and only true god. What makes these monotheism followers want to passionately convert me into their faiths. Some go as far as telling me as my religion or my gods are not told in this final version of god's revelation therefore I better convert to their religion and so on. What do you guys think?

First of all, Xians are really polytheists. The Father, Son, and h.s. all communicate with each other in the n.t. and Yeshu speaks often about the father as a definite separate entity. There is also a fourth Xian God, per numerous n.t. references, Satan, "the God of this world". That being said, all Gods are one. Every religion since the beginning of time have a "God-God" behind the others. Judiasm simply takes them and makes them angels and demons. Hinduism has "Brahman", the "god-god" behind the scenes of Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, etc. In Latin, the real name for Jupiter is "JOVE", which was pronounced exactly the same as "YHVH" in Hebrew. The Sioux believe in Wakan Tanka. The Mayans had Hunab Ku. All religions are both poly- and Mono-theistic. Did you know that Wodin was also "AllFather"? Can you guess what that means? In Greek, "Zeus" was the same as "Deus" in Latin- "God".

In my opinion it is God's will that groups like Muslims and Christians spread monotheism throughout the world. That way when Moshiach comes it will be much easier for everyone to understand monotheism. Polytheism (to me) is illogical. You cannot have more than one god if you call these beings "gods". The very definition of a god contradicts the possibility of another god.

This is also why the many millions and millions of people who never heard the Word once have a chance. The many thousands of tribes who never seen a Bible throughout history. The babies who die before they are able to even do one wrong thing.

For myself personally I do not think I would have a good conscience without the help of the Spirt. Some say they do not need God to do good. Maybe that works for them. Oh I can be good without God I have before but my conscience would still condemn me and I would still have a guilty conscience of many things even if I did good at the same time and felt good about those things. The Spirit truly does transform.

Also what is a sin for one person is not necessary a sin for another. I am not talking about all the things that clearly are labeled as sin but what of those that are not? Some people feel eating this or that is a sin and another does not. Some might have a problem going to a swim park with so many girls scantily dressed and it would be too much for them to bear but for another it would not. Some feel self defense is a sin and others do not. For these things the one who is able to bear more is the stronger brother or sister. But they should yield to the weaker one and not tempt the weaker one just because they can handle something. The moment though we do something, dress different for instance just to appear holy and fit in, we are not doing it through the Spirit but through flesh and that to is a sin.

Our belief is not one size fits all but is a custom tailored plan made just for us. So when the Spirit not only convicts us of something but gives us the power to overcome something then we can understand yes that now is a sin for me when it was not before. I can finally give up smoking. For the one who smokes is not condemned, and others should not judge, but once the Spirit condemns and allows one the power to stop they should. Salvation is between us and God not between us and men. I would paste all of Romans 14 since it speaks on this but for this post the end of the chapter suffices.

Romans 2:14-15
14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.

Paul then brings in a few issues that I think many Chrisitans completely overlook. Verse 13 in particular, it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. Hearing the Law is not enough. Translating that into modern Christianity, sitting in Church for an hour a week is not enough

...


I hope the overview of this section of text doesn't get too much in the way. In the context of this whole section, I cannot see how verses 14-15 says "as a non-believer, if you don't think something is wrong, then it isn't wrong". edit: I mean, wouldn't that mean that if a man felt justified in locking his daughter in a basement for 24 years and fathering seven children through her, also locking three of those children in said basement for the entirety of their natural lives, then his conscience is clear and has a free path to God?

All the best, Clovis

I hope the overview of this section of text doesn't get too much in the way.

Matthew 19:26 Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Hebrews 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth.

2 Corinthians 4:8 So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.

In this manner I agree. It is a biased view in favor of God. We do believe 'all things' are possible with God. Some might view this as not having merit and that is fine. We are not using their system of merit for 'with man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.' Kind of circular reasoning and I hope I understood your post right. Logic though as we consider it does not apply to God. This is our view and no one has to share it nor do we expect anyone to share it who does not want to.

There are many things that are benign that can be turned and used as weapons for exploitation. Does this reflect badly on all those things or the men and women who used them wrongly? I would say the latter.

An appeal to fear (also called argumentum ad metum or argumentum in terrorem) is a logical fallacy in which a person attempts to create support for his or her idea by increasing fear and prejudice toward a competitor. The appeal to fear is extremely common in marketing and politics.

Clovis, wiki probably isn't the best source for studying effective reasoning but kudos to you for trying...In all fairness to you this was my error, i was under the impression you have a sound understanding of formal/informal argumentation...


i was actaully trying to be gracious and fair......

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

The view that other worlds and universes might exist is not foreign to monotheist. We believe all things are possible with God.



Usually 'worlds' here is translated as 'universe' and comes from the word 'aion'. It can also mean eternity and the whole space-time continuum.



We also do not consider this world our home. We are trapped here in these bodies but what is in us does not belong here.



All that can be seen on this planet is temporary. We know there is more to this. More to what can be seen even as far as the cosmos go there is another world unseen.



Also the way that we are all connected, interconnected, is not something monotheist reject. If the rocks and mountains sing to the Lord and others consider them just dead voiceless things we can see how that view is incorporated within the Bible. Where the difference lies is that God is the Creator of all these things. Also as science makes more and more discoveries of how things work we also see the hand of God at work in all those things.

Observation though tells me that all things are made of waves and circles. The waves are not only in color or sound that we see and hear but our thoughts and even down to the tiniest particles are all made of waves. Then there are circles, from our own bodies and circular functions, to the solar system and beyond, but infinity also is inward down to the smallest things. At first we thought atoms (which means uncuttable) were the smallest thing but that has since been proven wrong and it is equally likely in time they will find yet smaller than quarks and leptons.

Logic is not my strong suit I can easily admit. I do know the above quote though is an ad hominem attack where one attempts to disprove the person and hope it disproves their point at the same time. But with that said maybe this thread should be remain focused on the differences between monotheism and polytheism rather than disproving God or certain beliefs in God.

+ i am still trying to be gracious and fair



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Gods and Goddess, Bible quotes give me a head ache. I don't understand what they have to do the Polytheism. As I pointed out my premise for part of my belief in polytheism is there is very little I can see comes in one completely unique object. So why would a God or Goddess?

They have nothing to do with polytheism but only were presented because your view attempted to place monotheists in a box, saying we do not believe in these possibilities that you do, and that box does not really exists. The only thing we disagree on that I see is your view on what a monotheist believes and also that the whole of the interconnected universe each has a divinity of sorts that rules over certain parts. This is exactly what the ancient polytheist did by believing that there was a god or goddess for every hill, city, weather event, crops, etc...you have just given an updated version of that.

BTW not all monotheist believe in God some believe in a goddess or a force. Not all believe in the Bible either.

Christianity partly succeeded by fulfilling a a psychological need which the pagan religions had entirely failed to do so, since they required no real personal commitment. People were more easily able to identify with the tenets of the Christian Church, as represented by a Man who had actually lived on earth with them, than with a series of shady, mythological figures that had largely outlived their usefulness.

What are your thoughts on this quote from a historian within one of my books. This chapter devoted to the religions of Rome covers many of the beliefs held at one time or another within the Empire and does not take sides.



Wacher, John. "The Roman Empire" Barnes & Nobles Book. 1997 p 178

This is only the initial stages of why Christianity began to win over Pagans but certainly not the last. How do you think history has changed and will the New Age and Paganism (which is mostly but not all polytheistic) pose a similar threat to Christianity?

If someone has a question about religion or mythology and how it applied to Europe throughout the ages I have many books and would be glad to look into them for anyone. It would give me great pleasure to research anything that has to do with historical perspective.

The First Missionary War, Chapter 1
by Michael Routery

http://www.vinland.org/scamp/grove/kreich/index.html
Introduction
The Christian religion has, so often, spread through violence, force and coercion, yet, its advocates, who have written the histories most of us learned in school, portray it, as having been, joyfully embraced by the ancient world, a loving embrace whose only restriction was imposed by the corrupt Roman state like a mean father with an innocent child. In this essay, I present the view of the pagans for a change and without apology. In truth, the Church triumphed by marrying the Empire, in that most fateful of centuries, the Fourth, and for the most part people converted because they were terrorized into doing so or forced to by ferociously repressive new laws. As Christ, is reputed to have said, he came with the sword. In the forced conversion of the inhabitants of the Roman Empire to Christianity, the new religion set itself apart from others, particularly, in its jealousy and extreme intolerance of any other spiritualities. In the ancient world this mania to impose one God, exclusively, was an aberration. Israel had attempted it, but only upon its own ethnic group.

The stage was set, by Christian mobs, led by their bishops, performing as shock troops, rampaging through pagan temples, looting, destroying art works, burning books and often murdering the priests and priestesses and assaulting their humble followers. The third century was a period of worsening economic crisis and social decline for the Mediterranean world, the Imperial government searched for ways to fortify the state structure with drastic laws curtailing people's freedom of movement, profession and eventually religion. The emergence of church dominance can only be understood within this matrix of decay. Taxation became extremely harsh, laws tied people to the professions of their parents, destitute farmers fled the tax men and sought refuge on the vast estates of the extremely rich, laying the pattern for medieval serfdom. The church, which was much more organized than the pagan religions, was seen by the state as a scaffolding upon which the sociopolitical order could be strengthened.

Contrary to the carefully fabricated 'histories' of the church, the hierarchically structured church had many wealthy members. It was not a movement with socially 'progressive' features as many contemporary liberal Christians believe. Christian apologists assert the supposedly compassionate stance of the new religion in contrast to the classical values, particularly in regards to slavery, yet in reality, the church officials supported slavery. A prominent Christian woman, Melania the Younger, was the owner of 24,000 slaves.1 Christianity actually used the metaphor of the slave's relationship to his/her master as that of the human to God as in a parable of Jesus. Paul exhorted runaway slaves to return to their masters, determined that the church present no signs of rebellion to the established social order. Ambrose and Augustine stated that the institution of slavery was actually good for the slave who, insidiously, was said to receive a reward in heaven for what s/he suffered in this world. Jerome, on the other hand, was critical of household slavery, seeing it as a threat to sexual virtue, a temptation to whet the lust of the owners.

The early church tended to be hostile to all sexuality; even heterosexual relations between husband and wife were generally viewed as an unfortunate but necessary evil in a fallen world. The Church certainly wasn't entirely responsible for this gloomy attitude towards the world and its pleasures, the late pagan philosophers had taken an increasingly pessimistic turn, roots of such thinking can be seen in Platonic thought, where the world of ideas is seen as superior to the world of forms, but the Church, influenced by Gnostic and Manichaean (Persian) duality, wove together the more anti-worldly aspects of Greek and Hebrew thought with its particular salvation myth. While the Greco-Roman world was certainly a patriarchal one, it was a very complex, 'multi-cultural' society where many diverse cultural traditions , some extremely ancient, existed side by side and quite a few of these traditions provided a place for independent women in spiritual roles in temples. Both Roman and Greek women of the imperial period had more freedom than they did in either classical Greece or republican Rome. The Mother Goddesses temples were popular with many women and also gender-variant males; these especially met the wrath and hatred of the emerging church. These goddesses were labeled demons by the 'Church Fathers' and villainy was heaped upon their priestesses and priests.

Many of these spiritual traditions are often referred to as Mystery cults, a term perhaps confusing in terms of modern usage. They were personal religions, as opposed to the rather austere and formalist official cult and offered 'initiations': powerful psychic dramas that often occurred as part of festivals and pilgrimages. They offered experiences that deeply engaged the senses and imagination of the participants. They were not exclusive and often a single individual would undergo initiation from several. Their attitude towards myth was playful, not dogmatic, leaving plenty of room for personal interpretation and creation of meaning, but they often leaned towards ideas of the soul's continuation, mirrored in metaphors of the agricultural round of the death and renewal of plant life, and had emerged at an early date out of seasonal rites reflecting such natural cycles. Essentially, these were not religions in the modern Christian defined sense; there were no boundaries between them, a priestess of one was often a priestess of others, in short, they were part of the overall fabric of pagan spirituality.2 They did stand in contrast, though, to the state cult which by imperial times had become a rather dry and formalistic affair that left many people cold. Some of the most popular Mysteries included that of the Egyptian goddess Isis, the originally Anatolian (Turkish) goddess, Cybele, of the Greek god, Dionysus, of the Persian solar god, Mithra, and probably the most famous of them all, that of Eleusis, a Greek ritual cycle of the earth and grain goddess Demeter and her daughter Kore (Persephone). It was these personally empowering centers and movements, which attracted people from all social strata, that the Church saw as such a major threat, its foremost competitors, and it seems no accident that their integral placing of women and sexually and gender variant people had something to do with the Church leaders extreme hostility towards them.

Why is it so difficult for monotheism followers to accept polytheism?
I am from polytheistic culture and for me to accept someone else’s GOD is very easy. I look at them and think nothing about their god and accept it at their face value, but when it comes to polytheistic beliefs what I get is how wrong it is to believe in so many gods and what kind of hells I will be facing because I did not know the one and only true god. What makes these monotheism followers want to passionately convert me into their faiths. Some go as far as telling me as my religion or my gods are not told in this final version of god’s revelation therefore I better convert to their religion and so on. What do you guys think?

Judeo-Christianity is a polytheistic relgion, whether Christians admit it or not.
Doug

it's kind of odd...i've never met anyone who believed in polythiesm

oh, and one more thing...how do you percieve christianity as a polythiestic religion??

Decius authorized roving commissions visiting the cities and villages to supervise the execution of the sacrifices and to deliver written certificates to all citizens who performed them. Christians were often given opportunities to avoid further punishment by publicly offering sacrifices or burning incense to Roman gods, and were accused by the Romans of impiety when they refused. Refusa l was punished by arrest, imprisonment, torture, and executions. Christians fled to safe havens in the countryside and some purchased their certificates, called libelli. Several councils held at Carthage debated the extent to which the community should accept these lapsed Christians.

The haruspices were unable to read the sacrificed animals, and failed to do so after repeated trials. The master haruspex eventually declared that this failure was the result of interruptions in the process caused by profane men: certain Christians in the imperial household were seen to have made the sign of the cross in an attempt to create a defense against the demons called into service in the pagan ceremonies. The emperors, angry at this turn of events, declared that all members of the court need perform their own sacrifice. Following this, they sent letters to the military command, requiring the entire army to either perform the required sacrifices or else face discharge.

According to Lactantius, Diocletian and Galerius entered into an argument over what imperial policy towards Christians should be while wintering at Nicomedia in 302. Diocletian argued that forbidding Christians from the bureaucracy and military would be sufficient to appease the gods, while Galerius pushed for their extermination. The two men sought to resolve their dispute by sending a messenger to consult the oracle of Apollo at Didyma. Upon returning, the messenger told the court that "the just on earth" hindered Apollo's ability to speak. These "just", Diocletian was informed by members of the court, could only refer to the Christians of the empire. At the behest of his court, Diocletian finally acceded to demands for universal persecution.

On February 23, 303, Diocletian ordered that the newly-built Christian church at Nicomedia be razed, its scriptures set to flame, and the treasures of the church collected as treasure. The next day, Diocletian's first "Edict against the Christians" was published. This ordered the destruction of Christian scriptures and places of worship across the Empire, and prohibited Christians from assembling for worship.

1. Persecution under Nero (c. 64-68)
2. Persecution under Domitian (r. 81-96)
3. Persecution under Trajan (112-117)
4. Persecution under Marcus Aurelius (r. 161-180)
5. Persecution under Septimus Severus (202-210)
6. Persecution under Maximinus the Thracian (235-38)
7. Persecution under Decius (250-251)
8. Persecution under Valerian (257-59)
9. Persecution under Aurelian (r. 270–275)
10. Severe persecution under Diocletian and Galerius (303-324)

Finally, Persecution under the last Pagan Roman Emperor.

1. Persecution Under Julian the Apostate (r. 361-363)

But the growing strength of the new religion attracted what would now be called a 'bad press'. All manner of evil customs were attributed to it, such as incest and cannibalism, while its active proselytising brought it into disrepute with loyal citizens. Consequently Christians were seen as a disruptive element in society and, when the convulsions in the third century began, they proved a convenient scapegoat for much of the Empire's ills. But even then the treatment was uneven. Under Maximinus, bishops were exiled or martyred, but under his immediate successors they was a reversion to tolerance. It did not last. From Decius Trajan to Diocletian and Galerius, apart from short intermissions, the Empire declared war on the Church, with a degree of ferocity probably only equalled by Nero's earlier persecution; it was no longer just a scapegoat but the defined origin of all that had gone wrong with the Roman state. Yet despite this the Church had grown strong enough to withstand onslaught, and even Galerius in the east had to call a halt to the persecutions in 311.

This long period of persecution was followed almost immediately by one of the most remarkable conversions to the Christian faith. Emperor Constantine I, who had already secured the western Empire for himself, is reputed to have had a dream or a vision which led to his own conversion and the issue of the Edict of Milan in 313, by which Christianity was recognized as a permitted religion. In 325, following the Council of the Church at Nicaea, it became the official religion of the Empire. Some attempts were subsequently made to revive paganism, notably under the Emperor Julian, but without much success. Under Theodosius, victory for the Church became final, although it is sad to record that by then it was showing, in some places, the same degree of barbarity and intolerance towards pagans that they themselves once suffered.

....


Unfortunately, the early Church, having achieved its aim and official recognition in the Empire, was at war within itself. Several heresies emerged, causing some serious schisms; Pelagianism, propounded by a man, born in Britain, who gave his name to his own particular brand of Christianity, was one which proved serious in the west.

Yet, despite the rise of Christianity and its more despotic developments in the later fourth century, there still lingered in some remote areas traces of paganism, often associated with places of antiquity, such as some of the hillforts in Britain and Gaul (whatever happened to the druids?). IN some places too there were curious conjunctions of Christianity with pagan mythology, which are not easy to explain, especially given the intolerance of the state and Church administration of the time.

Pagan Latin literature, in the fourth century, celebrated a brilliant last flowering in works of nature and love, and in the masterly historical work bu Ammianus Marcellinus, of which the final portion, dealing with his own age (AD 353-78), survives. We see that time as the beginning of an end;he rather views it as a troubled period which recourse to the old senatorial tradition could revive.

To Rome, the divinity of the Sun came very early on; and then, centuries afterwards, in the superb dome of Hadrian's Pantheon, the central opening, surrounded by starlike rosettes, represented the solar orb. Moreover, the cult of this deity offered flattering analogies to the imperial regime and its resplendent, sunlike leaders....

....The birthday of the god was to be on December 25, and this, transformed into Christmas Day, was one of the heritages owed to his cult.

For a time, at a critical juncture, the symbiosis of the two faiths was very close. Constantine the Great, in the years preceding his Christianization of the empire, and even later while this process was actually under way, concentrated all the resources of a vast bronze coinage upon the single design of the Sun god, accompanied by the inscription To the Sun, the Unconquerable Companion (SOLI INVICTO COMITI) (ca. 309). At this juncture, the Sun cult could well have become the religion of the Mediterranean area for an indefinite period ahead. But it did not do so, in the end, because such a divinity was too impersonal, too lacking in urgent human appeal...

As Christ, is reputed to have said, he came with the sword. In the forced conversion of the inhabitants of the Roman Empire to Christianity, the new religion set itself apart from others, particularly, in its jealousy and extreme intolerance of any other spiritualities. In the ancient world this mania to impose one God, exclusively, was an aberration. Israel had attempted it, but only upon its own ethnic group.

The stage was set, by Christian mobs, led by their bishops, performing as shock troops, rampaging through pagan temples, looting, destroying art works, burning books and often murdering the priests and priestesses and assaulting their humble followers. The third century was a period of worsening economic crisis and social decline for the Mediterranean world, the Imperial government searched for ways to fortify the state structure with drastic laws curtailing people's freedom of movement, profession and eventually religion. The emergence of church dominance can only be understood within this matrix of decay. Taxation became extremely harsh, laws tied people to the professions of their parents, destitute farmers fled the tax men and sought refuge on the vast estates of the extremely rich, laying the pattern for medieval serfdom. The church, which was much more organized than the pagan religions, was seen by the state as a scaffolding upon which the sociopolitical order could be strengthened.

It was not a movement with socially 'progressive' features as many contemporary liberal Christians believe. Christian apologists assert the supposedly compassionate stance of the new religion in contrast to the classical values, particularly in regards to slavery, yet in reality, the church officials supported slavery. A prominent Christian woman, Melania the Younger, was the owner of 24,000 slaves.1 Christianity actually used the metaphor of the slave's relationship to his/her master as that of the human to God as in a parable of Jesus. Paul exhorted runaway slaves to return to their masters, determined that the church present no signs of rebellion to the established social order.

When her father and their daughter died soon after that, they liquidated their property and used the very large amounts of money to found monasteries, including buying entire islands. They also ransomed captives and helped the poor and sick closer to home.

Their home was too valuable for any buyer; it was burnt down when the Visigoths invaded Rome.

And she freed 8000 slaves who wished freedom, for the rest did not wish it, but preferred to be slaves to her brother; and she allowed him to take them all for three pieces of money. But having sold her possessions in the Spains, Aquitania, Tarragonia and the Gauls, she reserved for herself only those in Sicily and Campania and Africa and appropriated their income for the support of monasteries.

Both the Stoics and the early Christians opposed the ill-treatment of slaves, rather than slavery itself. Keith R. Bradley argues, indeed, that the influence of such texts as "obey your masters...with fear and trembling" may have made beatings more common in late Antiquity. Many Christian leaders (such as Gregory of Nyssa and John Chrysostom) often called for good treatment for slaves and condemned slavery. In fact, tradition describes Pope Clement I (term c. 92 - 99), Pope Pius I (term c. 158 - 167) and Pope Callixtus I (term c. 217 - 222) as former slaves.

A concurrent trend with the increasing move of women towards more independence and a more public role was a hostile reaction from many male writers who sought to speak for their society. The backlash was partly against women, true, but also represented an established tradition of looking back to a supposedly innocent, virtuous Roman past in contrast to its decadent present. For every Pliny who can speak with admiration of a woman like Arria, there were ten slashing satires of a Juvenal or Martial, who apparently found nothing whatever to commend in any women in any condition, maid, wife, or mother. While the very essence of the satires was to hold a mirror up to an unsatisfactory nature in their own times, yet a truly misogynist note is difficult to ignore. It can be argued that the tone arose from the writer's own personal relations with women; one is also curious if a century of increasingly strong, even dominant and domineering, imperial women had soured the male perspective of how much power and influence a woman should properly wield.

Notes to this chapter
1. Grant, A Social History of Greece and Rome, p.110.

2. see Burkert, Ancient Mystery Cults

I made a study of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible). It is my considered opinion that references to "God", "the Almighty", etc. in these books refer to a multiplicity of gods. The fire-breathing god(s) of the OT are Baal Hadad and Seth. Moses went up a mountain with a Temple of Hathor on it and came down carrying the Ten Commandments. Moses' father-in-law, Jethro (whose name means "Priest of Ra") was (supposedly) a Midianite priest whose people were worshippers of Baal. The wind that blew the Red Sea out of the way was sent by Baal Zephon. Pharaoh had three armies - named for Amun, Seth and Ra (The Trinity.). The priest of Baal Peor, Balaam, was a follower of Mahesh, a Baalist sun god, whose angle appeared to Ballam's donkey on the slopes of Mount Peor; Peor could derive from Pi-Hor, meaning "Temple of Horus."

In some churches, Christians still shout "Amen," the name of an Egyptian god. The rationalization is that the word is Hebrew for "Truth." I don't know if this is true, but much of the Hebrew language is taken from ancient Egyptian. Many churches are built on hilltops, excatly like ancient temples (The word [-hr] in hieroglyphics means both "god" and "hilltop.").

Christians will argue in support of "The Trinity" while maintaining they believe in one god (Don't mention the army of saints maintained by the Catholics.).

AND: the Bible uses "elohim" (a plural word) to refer to God.

Judeo-Christianity is a polytheistic relgion, whether Christians admit it or not.
Doug

Elohim has plural morphological form in Hebrew, but it is used with singular verbs and adjectives in the Hebrew text when the particular meaning of the God of Israel (a singular deity) is traditionally understood. Thus the very first words of the Bible are bresh** bara elohim, where bara ברא is a verb inflected as third person singular masculine perfect. If Elohim were an ordinary plural word, then the plural verb form bar'u בראו would have been used in this sentence instead. Such plural grammatical forms are in fact found in cases where Elohim has semantically plural reference (not referring to the God of Israel). There are a few other words in Hebrew that have a plural ending, but refer to a single entity and take singular verbs and adjectives, for example בעלים (be'alim, owner) in Exodus 21:29 and elsewhere.

Popular among some theosophists and adherents of esoteric Christianity is the conjecture that amen is a derivative of the name of the Egyptian god named Amun (which is sometimes also spelled Amen).There is no academic support for this view.

masc. proper name, biblical father-in-law of Moses, from Heb. Yithro, collateral form of Yether, lit. "abundance," from base y-t-r "to be left over, to remain."

Here are the foot notes on this chapter.




Yes, Rome did kill all Druids before the Christian take over, but they did stop after the take over. They were still at war with the Celts.
I have to get ready to go to gym, I can stop off at the library for some research.