3 ms·

> but there’s a reason it swept the world. Monotheism didn’t really sweep the world, though. Christianity and its sequel did. Is it critical that these are mo

> but there’s a reason it swept the world. Monotheism didn’t really sweep the world, though. Christianity and its sequel did. Is it critical that these are monotheistic religions, anyway, or is there something in common within the meme complex of these two religions that enabled their spread? Like we actually don’t know if the monotheism part matters at all right?

renewiltord 7mo ago
The class of research invalidated by a famous tweet: > cars have windows and can move. houses have windows and can’t move. so it’s not the windows that make the car go, it’s something else entirely
roncesvalles 7mo ago
The vast majority of religions historically have been polytheistic (or atheistic). Islam and Christianity being monotheistic was probably relevant to their expansion because they proposed a total replacement of the prevailing polytheistic belief system wherever they spread. It seems usually when polytheistic religions collide, their gods tend to merge into a syncretism. Another way to think about it is that it's not their expansion that's remarkable. It's the fact that they preserved the original system so well, despite expansion across literally multiple continents and cultures. For this it helps to have one prophet, one book, one God (, one Pope / one Mecca).
- krapp 7mo ago
  Christianity was monotheist because it began as a cult of Judaism. Islam was monotheist because it began as a cult of Christianity. It's a mistake to treat these religions as entirely separate, even though dogmatically each believes the others to be heretical. And Judaism itself was probably just cribbing from Zoroastrianism. Although I would argue the Trinity (which is a modern Christian invention) and many aspects of reverence for saints and angels is pseudo-polytheistic, and likely a result of the syncretism of the various pagan traditions into Christianity as it spread throughout Europe, although that came later.
  - michaelsbradley 7mo ago
    > the Trinity (which is a modern Christian invention) The theological language of hypostases in relation to the divine persons of the Trinity was worked out in the late 300s but proto-Trinitarian language is found in Christian writings nearly 200 years before that, i.e. butting up against the close of the apostolic age. So, how is it you propose it’s a modern invention? That is, what timeframe constitutes “modern”? Even 300s is considered early Christian history. Likewise, from the early Church onward, Christians were careful to distinguish reverence for and intercessory invocation of martyrs, saints, and angels, who are all just creatures, from worship of God.
    - krapp 7mo ago
      >So, how is it you propose it’s a modern invention? That is, what timeframe constitutes “modern”? Even 300s is considered early Christian history. I consider it "modern" because it was invented when the Christian church was already established to address controversies with existing doctrine (the divinity of Jesus, the nature of the Holy Spirit, etc.) It wasn't a concept that would have been recognized by Jesus or the disciples, or any Christian for centuries. It isn't in any of the Gospels except as language that was later ex post facto interpreted as referring to the Trinity. >Likewise, from the early Church onward, Christians were careful to distinguish reverence for and intercessory invocation of martyrs, saints, and angels, who are all just creatures, from worship of God. Christians can justify it however they like, to an outsider there is little if any difference between praying to a saint or angel in their specific domain and praying to a household god of that domain. In some cases these beings are direct reinterpretations of pagan deities. You have families and people "protected" by specific saints or angels, and using artifacts and symbols to summon the power of those beings which outside of the Christian context would be considered occult practice. I called these things pseudo-polytheistic because they seem to draw from similar cultural impulses and have similar features but exist within a contrary theological context.
      - michaelsbradley 7mo ago
        > I consider it "modern" You can use words however you like, of course, but others may struggle to understand your perspective if your usage is novel and/or strained. General consensus is the early modern period of theological development in Christian history began in the 1500s. > To an outsider there is little if any difference Fine, but… two people could be sitting at similar looking computers, one playing Minesweeper while the other is doing chemical engineering in MATLAB. There are objective differences in those human activities. If someone insisted they are doing pseudo-same-thing, it would be fair to say that’s a stretch and tends toward missing the point. But I do (maybe) understand what you mean: inculturation was a real phenomenon as Christianity spread Eastward and Westward.
- teleforce 7mo ago
  The Abrahamic narrative is that everyone started from Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve believe in one single God in the heaven. Adam was sent down from heaven to the earth, to be the successor (Arabic caliph) to the "one" God. In Semitic language "one" is literal one, not 2 or 3. For example the name Allah in Arabic and Hebrew by definition does not has plural equivalent or gender, like Gods or Goddest. But overtime by ignorance, people started worshipping idols alongside the original God. These idols were originally in the physical form of pious people. Case in point, Christian "worship" Jesus via Trinity concept invention and, Buddhist worship Buddha idol. It is the job of these later messengers/prophets to remind these ignorant people to worship one true God, some of them have book/kitab/suhuf/scripture from God as guidance. Muslim believe Quran is the last and the only uncorrupted holy scripture remaining. For muslim, however, Jesus (or most likely Buddha as well), is just another messengers/prophets from the long list of messengers/prophets than ended in Muhammad. Fun facts all of the main major religious scriptures Hindu, Jewish, Christian, Buddhist has description or prophecy of Muhammad one way or another. In Jewish tradition it is well known that they are waiting for three prophets at the the time of Jesus (Messiah) arrival, but denied all of them including Muhammad the last one. Another fun facts, in the science of human genetic it has yhr concept of mythocondrial eve [1]. This is the proof that we human all come and originated from a single parent, regardless of races. [1] Mitochondrial Eve: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
  - spicymaki 7mo ago
    Buddhists do not usually worship the Buddha like God. Buddhists revere him as wise teacher, especially in modern times.
    - arcxi 7mo ago
      My impression is that it's mostly Western secular interpretation while the largest branch of Buddhism and the most predominant in Asia currently is Mahayana where Buddha, or rather Buddhas (as it has many others besides Siddhartha Gautama), are seen as omnipotent spiritual beings with supernatural powers, who are accessible through prayer after apparent death of their human form, which seems close to our traditional concept of deities.
- Tklaaaalo 7mo ago
  Probably also build-in indoctrination from early on. And the zeitgeist at that time was probably also that the richer people were only able to spend time of doing religious things; richer = more influence
krapp 7mo ago
I think what matters in the case of the Abrahamic religions (or any religion) is the power of the military that spreads it. Christianity was forced onto the Western world by Rome and later Spain, Britain, Portugal and other powers as a means of consolidating imperialist control and the slave trade. But remember a similar process happened with Buddhism and Confcucianism across Asia. Native religions were oppressed and state religions established.
- elcritch 7mo ago
  Partially true, but it's more complicated than this. Especially for Christianity. Christianity did spread initially through the Roman empire despite broad persecutions by the state until Constantine legalized it. There's also evidence Christianity spread to Europe in the 2nd century before Constantine. It also spread to Ethiopia, Assyria, and even India, mostly by trade routes. Christianity afterwards did spread with various European empires, but it also acted as a restraining hand as well. Some Christian missionaries went against the colonial states, in particular Protestant ones.

renewiltord 7mo ago

The class of research invalidated by a famous tweet: > cars have windows and can move. houses have windows and can’t move. so it’s not the windows that make the car go, it’s something else entirely

roncesvalles 7mo ago

The vast majority of religions historically have been polytheistic (or atheistic). Islam and Christianity being monotheistic was probably relevant to their expansion because they proposed a total replacement of the prevailing polytheistic belief system wherever they spread. It seems usually when polytheistic religions collide, their gods tend to merge into a syncretism. Another way to think about it is that it's not their expansion that's remarkable. It's the fact that they preserved the original system so well, despite expansion across literally multiple continents and cultures. For this it helps to have one prophet, one book, one God (, one Pope / one Mecca).

krapp 7mo ago
Christianity was monotheist because it began as a cult of Judaism. Islam was monotheist because it began as a cult of Christianity. It's a mistake to treat these religions as entirely separate, even though dogmatically each believes the others to be heretical. And Judaism itself was probably just cribbing from Zoroastrianism. Although I would argue the Trinity (which is a modern Christian invention) and many aspects of reverence for saints and angels is pseudo-polytheistic, and likely a result of the syncretism of the various pagan traditions into Christianity as it spread throughout Europe, although that came later.
- michaelsbradley 7mo ago
  > the Trinity (which is a modern Christian invention) The theological language of hypostases in relation to the divine persons of the Trinity was worked out in the late 300s but proto-Trinitarian language is found in Christian writings nearly 200 years before that, i.e. butting up against the close of the apostolic age. So, how is it you propose it’s a modern invention? That is, what timeframe constitutes “modern”? Even 300s is considered early Christian history. Likewise, from the early Church onward, Christians were careful to distinguish reverence for and intercessory invocation of martyrs, saints, and angels, who are all just creatures, from worship of God.
  - krapp 7mo ago
    >So, how is it you propose it’s a modern invention? That is, what timeframe constitutes “modern”? Even 300s is considered early Christian history. I consider it "modern" because it was invented when the Christian church was already established to address controversies with existing doctrine (the divinity of Jesus, the nature of the Holy Spirit, etc.) It wasn't a concept that would have been recognized by Jesus or the disciples, or any Christian for centuries. It isn't in any of the Gospels except as language that was later ex post facto interpreted as referring to the Trinity. >Likewise, from the early Church onward, Christians were careful to distinguish reverence for and intercessory invocation of martyrs, saints, and angels, who are all just creatures, from worship of God. Christians can justify it however they like, to an outsider there is little if any difference between praying to a saint or angel in their specific domain and praying to a household god of that domain. In some cases these beings are direct reinterpretations of pagan deities. You have families and people "protected" by specific saints or angels, and using artifacts and symbols to summon the power of those beings which outside of the Christian context would be considered occult practice. I called these things pseudo-polytheistic because they seem to draw from similar cultural impulses and have similar features but exist within a contrary theological context.
    - michaelsbradley 7mo ago
      > I consider it "modern" You can use words however you like, of course, but others may struggle to understand your perspective if your usage is novel and/or strained. General consensus is the early modern period of theological development in Christian history began in the 1500s. > To an outsider there is little if any difference Fine, but… two people could be sitting at similar looking computers, one playing Minesweeper while the other is doing chemical engineering in MATLAB. There are objective differences in those human activities. If someone insisted they are doing pseudo-same-thing, it would be fair to say that’s a stretch and tends toward missing the point. But I do (maybe) understand what you mean: inculturation was a real phenomenon as Christianity spread Eastward and Westward.
teleforce 7mo ago
The Abrahamic narrative is that everyone started from Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve believe in one single God in the heaven. Adam was sent down from heaven to the earth, to be the successor (Arabic caliph) to the "one" God. In Semitic language "one" is literal one, not 2 or 3. For example the name Allah in Arabic and Hebrew by definition does not has plural equivalent or gender, like Gods or Goddest. But overtime by ignorance, people started worshipping idols alongside the original God. These idols were originally in the physical form of pious people. Case in point, Christian "worship" Jesus via Trinity concept invention and, Buddhist worship Buddha idol. It is the job of these later messengers/prophets to remind these ignorant people to worship one true God, some of them have book/kitab/suhuf/scripture from God as guidance. Muslim believe Quran is the last and the only uncorrupted holy scripture remaining. For muslim, however, Jesus (or most likely Buddha as well), is just another messengers/prophets from the long list of messengers/prophets than ended in Muhammad. Fun facts all of the main major religious scriptures Hindu, Jewish, Christian, Buddhist has description or prophecy of Muhammad one way or another. In Jewish tradition it is well known that they are waiting for three prophets at the the time of Jesus (Messiah) arrival, but denied all of them including Muhammad the last one. Another fun facts, in the science of human genetic it has yhr concept of mythocondrial eve [1]. This is the proof that we human all come and originated from a single parent, regardless of races. [1] Mitochondrial Eve: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
- spicymaki 7mo ago
  Buddhists do not usually worship the Buddha like God. Buddhists revere him as wise teacher, especially in modern times.
  - arcxi 7mo ago
    My impression is that it's mostly Western secular interpretation while the largest branch of Buddhism and the most predominant in Asia currently is Mahayana where Buddha, or rather Buddhas (as it has many others besides Siddhartha Gautama), are seen as omnipotent spiritual beings with supernatural powers, who are accessible through prayer after apparent death of their human form, which seems close to our traditional concept of deities.
Tklaaaalo 7mo ago
Probably also build-in indoctrination from early on. And the zeitgeist at that time was probably also that the richer people were only able to spend time of doing religious things; richer = more influence

krapp 7mo ago

I think what matters in the case of the Abrahamic religions (or any religion) is the power of the military that spreads it. Christianity was forced onto the Western world by Rome and later Spain, Britain, Portugal and other powers as a means of consolidating imperialist control and the slave trade. But remember a similar process happened with Buddhism and Confcucianism across Asia. Native religions were oppressed and state religions established.

elcritch 7mo ago
Partially true, but it's more complicated than this. Especially for Christianity. Christianity did spread initially through the Roman empire despite broad persecutions by the state until Constantine legalized it. There's also evidence Christianity spread to Europe in the 2nd century before Constantine. It also spread to Ethiopia, Assyria, and even India, mostly by trade routes. Christianity afterwards did spread with various European empires, but it also acted as a restraining hand as well. Some Christian missionaries went against the colonial states, in particular Protestant ones.