AnthonyGiarrusso
Member
How did monotheism become so popular?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How did monotheism become so popular?
- Thread starter AnthonyGiarrusso
- Start date
-
- Tags
- god monotheism one god
Pretty much, though that's a polite way of putting it. Though originally, monotheism only got a foothold because certain individuals in positions of power used said power to force monotheism upon the people. So it was a politics thing first, I guess. Then came enforcing political will with acts of genocide and oppression. After so much cultural erasure and suppression happened, monotheism enjoys a near total cultural hegemony in the English-speaking world. So much so that even atheism always defines itself in relation to it and never in relation to other types of theism in these same places.
Heyo
Veteran Member
It was always popular with the authoritarian political elite. A single god is a great example for a single leader. Polytheism is too democratic for their taste. And, as they had the power at the time, the leaders (Roman emperors first, their successors later) imposed monotheism on the people.
Colt
Well-Known Member
Fewer commercials!
Viker
Häxan
Often, what ever religion a monarch professed it was expected that his/her subjects followed. You can see this with Constantine and others. Monotheistic religions, the big two, spread this way... through compulsion, coercion, culture and conquest. Conquest was the best way to expand as missionary work and mail took too long. In the so called Dark Ages, pagans still outnumbered but not out militarized the ruling imperial classes. Most everyday people probably didn't care or aware one way or the other. Over time culture would absorb the masses.
Notice, Judaism never took up the sword or compelled non-Jews to assimilate. Yet, Judaism is a more coherent monotheistic tradition. It's also a minority monotheistic religion today.
Notice, Judaism never took up the sword or compelled non-Jews to assimilate. Yet, Judaism is a more coherent monotheistic tradition. It's also a minority monotheistic religion today.
The appearance of popularity is misleading here. God-beliefs are actually both varied and very personal.
What is popular is not nearly as much monotheism proper as the perception that it would be a good thing. Apparently it is troubling for many people to be theists while also acknowledging that other people hold very different conceptions of what their own deities are and why they would be admirable.
PureX
Veteran Member
It's simple.
And it responds to the most fundamental questions we have about existence: regarding the source, sustenance and purpose of all that is.
It is likely that early spiritual concepts evolved into this, given the progress made as to knowledge, and it probably made more sense, particularly when various concepts of such could be accommodated whereas anything else would hardly do so.
At the point of a sword
Christianity wasn't really forced on people by a sword until later. The Romans became Christians gradually of their own accord, as those whom Paul and the others evangelised. By the time Christianity was prevalent in Rome and the Middle East the Pagan temples were gathering dust; Emperor Julian tried to resurrect the Pagan situation but failed. Christianity had triumphed without a hint of violence. Egypt converted without violence, for example.
In the European colonies, the same thing happened. The Celtic peoples of Gaul, Britain, Iberia etc. wanted to be Romans and thus took on Roman culture, which included Roman religion. So the Celts became Christians of their own will, trying to ape Roman custom (and many really were Romans by now, having been under Roman yolk for hundreds of years and knowing no different). Many became heretical types, such as Pelagians, but were no longer Pagans at any rate.
The Germanics who invaded, largely the Eastern Germanics (Goths, Vandals, Lombards mainly) became Arians, another kind of heretical Christian. By 476, Odoacer, an East Germanic, took the throne and became Western Roman Emperor. He was an Arian. Theodoric, another Eastern Germanic, reigned after Odoacer from 493 as 'King of Italy' and was an Arian Ostrogoth. Both coexisted with the Catholic/Orthodox (what would become so) Christians, maintained friendliness with Popes etc. and there was no idea of religious violence against them.
All of these groups, the majority of Europeans at the time, were converted voluntarily and by 500 most of Roman Europe was Christian. By 800 this included some Slavs, Saxons etc. the people who had never been under Roman dominion in the West but came under Eastern Roman dominion, mainly Slavs, and so many took to Orthodox Christianity. This was largely a muddled situation with both Latins and Greeks (West/East) trying to evangelise the Slavs to their own. So Poland and Czechia become Catholic, for instance, while Serbia, Bulgaria, Russia etc. become Orthodox. But these people were missionaries going to these places, not soldiers with weapons, and were often killed in their missions.
The Vikings were converted usually as they settled in Christian countries, namely England, Scotland and Gaul. By the first millennium, the Normans were Catholics and all the Pagan Vikings who'd settled in Britain were also Christians. When William invaded he found no Pagans, nor expected to. The Vikings converted largely to be able to have relationships with the rest of Europe. If Gaul allowed them to settle they would convert. The Vikings accepted the deal and stuck to it. This idea spread to their homeland; it was pragmatic and political, but it wasn't 'at the point of a sword'.
What Charlemagne did to the Pagan Saxons was inexcusable even in his day. The Church fathers had forbad it and the Saxons strongly resisted. This may be said to be forced conversion.
The insular Saxons, however, were converted gradually largely by Irish missionaries, but also by the missionaries sent by Augustine of Canterbury. It took about ~100 years to convert them, but by the time the Vikings were invading there were broadly no more Pagans in mainland Britain. So no forced conversions there.
The situation with the Slavs was complex and fraught with racism and imperialism, and they once deconverted back to Paganism.
#Mediaevalist.
In the European colonies, the same thing happened. The Celtic peoples of Gaul, Britain, Iberia etc. wanted to be Romans and thus took on Roman culture, which included Roman religion. So the Celts became Christians of their own will, trying to ape Roman custom (and many really were Romans by now, having been under Roman yolk for hundreds of years and knowing no different). Many became heretical types, such as Pelagians, but were no longer Pagans at any rate.
The Germanics who invaded, largely the Eastern Germanics (Goths, Vandals, Lombards mainly) became Arians, another kind of heretical Christian. By 476, Odoacer, an East Germanic, took the throne and became Western Roman Emperor. He was an Arian. Theodoric, another Eastern Germanic, reigned after Odoacer from 493 as 'King of Italy' and was an Arian Ostrogoth. Both coexisted with the Catholic/Orthodox (what would become so) Christians, maintained friendliness with Popes etc. and there was no idea of religious violence against them.
All of these groups, the majority of Europeans at the time, were converted voluntarily and by 500 most of Roman Europe was Christian. By 800 this included some Slavs, Saxons etc. the people who had never been under Roman dominion in the West but came under Eastern Roman dominion, mainly Slavs, and so many took to Orthodox Christianity. This was largely a muddled situation with both Latins and Greeks (West/East) trying to evangelise the Slavs to their own. So Poland and Czechia become Catholic, for instance, while Serbia, Bulgaria, Russia etc. become Orthodox. But these people were missionaries going to these places, not soldiers with weapons, and were often killed in their missions.
The Vikings were converted usually as they settled in Christian countries, namely England, Scotland and Gaul. By the first millennium, the Normans were Catholics and all the Pagan Vikings who'd settled in Britain were also Christians. When William invaded he found no Pagans, nor expected to. The Vikings converted largely to be able to have relationships with the rest of Europe. If Gaul allowed them to settle they would convert. The Vikings accepted the deal and stuck to it. This idea spread to their homeland; it was pragmatic and political, but it wasn't 'at the point of a sword'.
What Charlemagne did to the Pagan Saxons was inexcusable even in his day. The Church fathers had forbad it and the Saxons strongly resisted. This may be said to be forced conversion.
The insular Saxons, however, were converted gradually largely by Irish missionaries, but also by the missionaries sent by Augustine of Canterbury. It took about ~100 years to convert them, but by the time the Vikings were invading there were broadly no more Pagans in mainland Britain. So no forced conversions there.
The situation with the Slavs was complex and fraught with racism and imperialism, and they once deconverted back to Paganism.
#Mediaevalist.
Last edited:
As i read it Christianity got a foothold in Rome via the Roman legions by usurping Mythrasism.
From there ex legionnaires took the new religion with them to their allotted parcel of land somewhere out in the empire and spread Christianity locally.
War and millitary conquests followed by oppression of other groups.
Such as?
The forcing came after Charlamange .. probably something to do with the Catholics Priests swearing off women .. and splitting from Orthodox round 1000. Did you ever notice that the Orthodox side of the Family was not doing the nasty stuff as vigorously as the Catholic... Just a thought across the bow .. the signs of societal ideological decay .. then manifesting later in that horrible atrocity of the later middle ages.
Lest we leave the late comers to the Party .. Let us turn our eyes to Brother Martin .. and his famous Treatise "on the Jews and their Lies" -
The Wiki summary below
Having been raised Lutheran .. I concur with the denunciation of this work .. but .. it points to the evil ideological perspective of the day .. one which was eminating from the Western Church. The Christians of that time were like the Radical Islamists of today in terms of ideological perspective.
cc
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Popular? Forced generally. Now people are rebelling against it. Like Patty Hearst, once you are in it, you start believing it. Then the clergy and the society will not allow you to leave it, may sometime even burn people alive or murdered in various ways.
It did not evolve that way. People worshiped many Gods, whether the Pagans of Europe or the inhabitants of what is now Israel or Arabia. Then came the age when people started claiming themselves as messengers of God. Akhenaten, Zoroaster, Moses, Jesus, Mohammad and other minnows. That is how Monotheism came about.
How is one God more sensible than a 100 Gods when there is no evidence for any?
Last edited:
Heyo
Veteran Member
The colonisation of the Slavic regions beginning with Charlemagne over the destruction of the last pagan holy place on Rügen in 1168 to the Lithuanian holy wars which ended in them turning Christian for political reasons (to unite with the Poles to kick out the Teutonic Order at Tannenberg in 1410).
As you wrote yourself above, the contact with the Slaves was a mess from beginning to end. Politics was mixed in with religion (on both sides) and your religion could change any day depending on which side your chief or king was on this week. But after all it was a violent occupation with forced baptism in tow.
The one God probably makes more sense as is the one reality - which is the more obvious take on existence, even without any God - and thus less likely to be in conflict with all the other concepts which might see it otherwise, hence perhaps that is why these fell out of favour over the one God explanation, even if the various religions chose a God favouring and which suited the local believers.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
There is perhaps one reality, but making it into a God without any reason or evidence defiles it.
We term it as a 'Vikara' (defilement) and term the One Reality as "Nirvikara", without any defilement.
My belief, Advaita Hinduism, accepts one reality without making it into a God or insisting on existence of soul (another thing which has no evidence).
Same here, I don't know as to what is reality and hence why I'm less inclined to believe in gods, but I can at least understand where such beliefs might come from - even if it is a rather simplistic and self-serving belief in my view.