PopeInTheWoods

This started out in the <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=47&t=000917" target="_blank">Voltaire</a> thread in RRP. Bill shredded some "feedback" from one &lt;Dr. S. M. Moutoux&gt;, and in the process made this fascinating assertion:
I asked a rather ill-formed question about the Roman Empire straddling paganism and monotheism, to which Bill responded with the following points (among others) that seem to conflict with the initial assertion.
Bill, if you were merely using a rhetorical device to hammer "Doctor" Moutoux, that's fine. If I've completely misunderstood your point, please let me know. But if your theory can be better developed, please explain it a bit more here. I'd like to throw in a few more questions:

- Is Islam today one of the "great religions" you mention? If so, what great civilization is it identified with?

- In the "xianity tied to Western Civilization" scenario, do you take into account the various flavors of xianity versus the various flavors of Western Civ? Or is it all just sectarian in-fighting? Or is it monotheism not specifically xianity that counts as the "great religion"?

- How, if at all, does the late unlamented Soviet Union play into this thesis?

Basically, I just find the initial assertion extremely intriguing and would like to hear more about it.

Andy

edited to make my question clearer

[ August 11, 2002: Message edited by: PopeInTheWoods ]</p>

echidna

While it might be a little strong to make it such an absolutist statement, it does seem true as a broad historical generalisation, bearing in mind that it rides heavily on what one defines as being “great religion” & “great civilisation”.

Given that separation of religion & government is a rare historical occurrence, it doesn’t seem so surprising.

Grumpy

Since religions are arbitrary constructs, their essential variable is basically their ability to propagate. This dismisses the simple conjecture that religions prevail because they are "right" or "good."

Mainly, the "Great Religions" had the good fortune to be propogated within an area rich in domesticable mammals & crop plants, on a continent which allowed the easy transmission of their use. But of course I owe Jared Diamond for this hypothesis.

ohwilleke

I agree with Bill on this point.


Here, I think that true is that the Roman Empire was the straddle between polytheism and Christianity which is the form of monotheism which eventually gained wide acceptance in Europe and later in its colonies and former colonies. This does not contradict the original idea, in the sense that without the Roman Empire, Christianity would have disappeared into history as a minor cult.

I also acknowledge, however, that the Roman Empire is not the only time and place in history where there has been a polytheism to monotheism transition. This also happened in ancient Egypt, in the early Arab empire, and in the Jewish community in the Levant.

Islam is identified with the Islamic empire that in the couple of hundred years after the start of Islamic expanded from a few tribes in the Arabian desert to Morocco and Timbuktu in the East, to Indonesian islands in the West, North into Spain and former Yugoslavia, and South as far as islands off present day Tanzania. This Bagdad based empire was a center of tolerance, intellectual inquiry, science and commerce. However, this great civiliation gradually crumbled during a period that overlaps the rise of Western Civilization. The hundreds of millions of people who now speak Arabic and the hundreds of millions of people who follow Islam are basic a footprint of where this once unified empire was located.

I think you misunderstand Bill's point. Bill's point is that the civilization boosts the religion, as opposed to the innate truth of the religion boosting the religion. In other words, religions gain wide acceptance as a side effect of cultural baggage associated with political and cultural success based other grounds. Bill is arguing that "great civilization causes that civiliation's religious beliefs to prosper.", he is not arguing the converse position which is that "montheism causes great civilization."

[ August 14, 2002: Message edited by: ohwilleke ]</p>

PopeInTheWoods

I think so too.
My interpretation wasn't quite the simplistic "monotheism causes great civilizations", but that dominant civilizations and dominant world views are tied to each other. But I now agree that the way you just put it (religion depends on great civilization, not necessarily vice versa) is what Bill meant, and my arguments have just disappeared in a poof of insight. Thanks all!

Andy

Amos

I disagree and hold that the mythology is for the survival and prosperity of the tribe. Conversely, the well being of a tribe can be measured by its artistic expression and in Shakespearean criticism I once read that the popularity of his plays over the years was a good indicator of the well being of a particular society or nation.

Edited to add that for this reason a mythology must be able to grow with the civilization because it is indeed the fruits of the mythology that makes the wisdom of the civilization increase. On other words, sages and giants are not random occurances but are products of the mythology.

[ August 19, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

Mad Kally

Amos,
Jesus was the reborn Joseph who was a guy just like you with the only difference that he was an "upright" sinner (all things are made in sin and since carpenters make many things Joseph was a big sinner).

The resurrection just means that the Joseph identity (in which Jesus was an imposter), had died, lest he becomes the final imposter (Mt.27:64) and die with the unresolved paradox "sinfull yet saved." This paradox was resolved in the netherworld of his subconscious mind where he preached for the conversion of generational sins (mephistpholus).

You must at least teach this as an option.

Kally

Amos

Sorry Kally, I had lost track of this post and was reminded of it when I saw the word "Kondratieff" and why it was that Kondratyef was exiled to Siberia (him and so many other potential sages).

Hi-density stuff isn't it?