IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Say "ideology"
and I'll agree.

Non-monotheistic religions are mostly not strong enough ideologies to use for evil. The statement "I believe in Zeus" is just not serious enough, because it has to be followed with "... and Poseidon, and Athena, and Hercules, and Hermafrodit, and Narciss" - it gets ridiculous.

To be powerful enough for evil, the ideology has to be able to de-humanise a portion of humanity. Before the advent of Christianity, world made do with non-religious ideologies for atrocities. Ellinistic culture and Roman Empire are two that we all know about. I have no idea what Genghis had for ideology, but there must have been some.

The idea of Big Three religions - there is _nothing_ except God, free will is a paradox - introduced a new ideology, plenty powerful enough to be used for evil. I don't know if Hinduism was powerful enough from the beginning or "learned" from the Big Three.

Also, please note that the development of ideologies did not stop on religion. Marxism produced a newer powerful ideology that was used for evil. The basic idea that those who have are all robbers and not quite people is powerful enough. Faschism, OTOH, is not new, just recycled Roman Empire, or Egyptian Empire or whatever else.

The interesting thing about monotheistic religion is that, when applied properly, to its logical extent, it dehumanises entire humanity, not a part of it. In the end, a saint, a sinner and an unbeliever are equal before the infinity of God. That's more than can be said about the other ideologies I saw so far. That makes religion less suited to use for evil, and less responsible for the evils that are commited in its name in my eyes.
--

... a reference to Presidente Arbusto.
-- [link|http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001417.html|Geoffrey K. Pullum]
New But you're forgetting Mars, the God of War.
[link|http://www.meridiangraphics.net/mars.htm|Mars].
Mars, the Roman God of War, was one of the most worshipped and revered gods throughout ancient Rome. He was the son of Jupiter and Juno and according to legend, fathered Romulus and Remus, the founders of Rome, with the vestal virgin Rhea Silvia. Because of this mythological lineage, the Roman people felt as though they were also the children of Mars and he was regarded as their protector. Mars held a special place in the Roman Pantheon not only for his patronly influence, but because of the importance of military achievement in the republic and the Roman Empire, conquering Northern Africa and much of Europe and the Middle East.
Alex

"If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words." -- Philip K. Dick, US science fiction writer
New Intriguing concept
But IMO there have been far too many polytheistic societies with "evil" behavior bound to one god or another. The most persistent in the Middle East for centuries was probably Moloch:

[link|http://www.fact-index.com/m/mo/moloch.html|http://www.fact-inde.../m/mo/moloch.html]
[link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moloch|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moloch]

...the most famous atrocity done in his name being the regular sacrifice of human babies. Although the original MLK deity may have sprung from a monotheistic culture (and even that's doubtful), he continued to appear well into the Babylonian period and beyond, each wave of conquest incorporating him into Yet Another Pantheon.

One might also easily mention the Aztecs' god of war, Huitzilopochtli, and the ritual human sacrifice and cannibalism performed in his name (among others in the same pantheon).

Before the advent of Christianity, world made do with non-religious ideologies for atrocities. Ellinistic culture and Roman Empire are two that we all know about.


I would put that more at the feet of a general atheistic trend which always accompanies large people-movements. Both the Greeks and Romans brought about and therefore experienced a large number of cultural upheavals. An increase in the pantheon followed each such shuffling, to the point of unsustainability which you mention. So I think you're right to say "there's a point at which polytheism loses its potency as a ideological basis for behavior." But I don't think you can then say _all_ polytheistic systems have been impotent. There's a critical mass which has only occurred (to my knowledge) a few times in history.
New I have to agree that polytheistic civilization commited
attrocities. But I am not sure if they indeed used religion as the excuse for real industrial-grade evil - killing off entire cities or nations, like Crusaders did to Constantinople, Nazies to Jews and Stalin to Chechens. Aztec gods and Moloch required human sacrifices, which is a horrible deed, but, when their followers set out to subjugate neighbors, did they do it because Moloch told them he needs more victims? I do not know enough about Aztecs, but Carthage's commercial expansion brought it in conflict with Rome, not religion.

Mars is another good example. Are Romans favored by Mars because the conquer, or are they conquering to please Mars? I thing former is closer to Romans' feelings.

--

... a reference to Presidente Arbusto.
-- [link|http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001417.html|Geoffrey K. Pullum]
New In the Aztec case, yes
The impetus for conquest was directly tied to the bloodthirstiness of the war god. They only killed and cannibalized their own when they ran out of nearby enemies.

All I'm saying is that Rome, and to a lesser extent Greece, had atheistic "industrial-grade evil" because they had acheived a critical mass of polytheism after numerous waves of conquest. Early Rome was much more bound to its pantheon as a sincere justification for behavior than later Rome was. So it's not polytheism per se which diffuses religious justification, IMO--instead, there's a watershed point when enough cultures have collided and mixed their pantheons. The Aztecs never had the opportunity to attain that watershed point, for example; their one chance came with European contact, and they didn't survive that long enough to see the polytheistic results. One might argue that Europe, itself, has reached that point, and that Hitler and Stalin are outcomes. I would guess that Chang Kai-shek and Mao Tse-tung (and other atheistic communist revolutionaries) functioned equivalently; they all were attempting *cultural* consolidation in the face of cultural uncertainty (with an economic factor, to be sure). The fact that they were able to do so atheistically was dependent upon the number and frequency of those same cultural collisions which forced the revolutions themselves.

IMO. I'm not going to make a doctoral thesis out of all this. ;)
     I have no idea what you're talking about - (Nightowl) - (31)
         new covenant was made up by paul who took - (boxley) - (30)
             WHA??? - (Nightowl) - (29)
                 Your church is confused - (boxley) - (13)
                     Maybe it's just me who's confused - (Nightowl) - (12)
                         well the root of all evil is religion - (boxley) - (11)
                             PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTT - (Nightowl) - (2)
                                 Good comeback. -NT - (pwhysall) - (1)
                                     Re: Good comeback. - (danreck)
                             Deep -NT - (deSitter)
                             That's not a Hebraic idea - (FuManChu) - (1)
                                 no hebrew required :-) - (boxley)
                             Say "ideology" - (Arkadiy) - (4)
                                 But you're forgetting Mars, the God of War. - (a6l6e6x)
                                 Intriguing concept - (FuManChu) - (2)
                                     I have to agree that polytheistic civilization commited - (Arkadiy) - (1)
                                         In the Aztec case, yes - (FuManChu)
                 Nope, you're talking the same thing - (ben_tilly) - (14)
                     Re: Nope, you're talking the same thing - (Nightowl) - (7)
                         No, you don't *know* that - (ben_tilly) - (6)
                             Re: No, you don't *know* that - (Nightowl) - (5)
                                 Ah, the fun of epistemology - (ben_tilly) - (4)
                                     It was the former. - (Nightowl) - (2)
                                         I realized that was likely... - (ben_tilly) - (1)
                                             That's ok - (Nightowl)
                                     Re: Ah, the fun of epistemology - (daemon)
                     Are you asking Owl or anyone? Luke 22, e.g. - (FuManChu) - (5)
                         Thanks! - (Nightowl)
                         thats an interpretation :-) -NT - (boxley) - (3)
                             Yessss...... - (FuManChu) - (2)
                                 Well not to revisit our pauline discussions - (boxley) - (1)
                                     Well, that's a guess on your part. - (FuManChu)

I found Soylent to be a punishingly boring, joyless product.
149 ms