| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Monotheism and violence
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Monotheism and violence

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
JPCC View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 09 Jan 2012
Location: Paris, France
Status: Offline
Points: 23
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JPCC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Monotheism and violence
    Posted: 09 Jan 2012 at 19:06
My question is: do you know of any serious study made by a professional historian comparing religious violence  (defined as violent events where at least one belligerent's intention to impose his own god or gods was one of the key motivations )   in the monotheist world (the world where monotheism is or has been the dominant religion) and the non-monotheist world (limited to folks with a high development of writing , that is where books are of common use, and to the time since JC.) ?
My impression is that religious persecutions have occurred everywhere in the world, but that in most cases it was a violence aimed at maintaining the inner oder , driven by the power in place, limited in time and killings, but that 1) religious wars, similar more to civil wars than to ordinary persecution, 2) deliberate destruction of gods, temples and liturgical objects of defeated stranger folks is specific to the monotheist world.
Thank sfor reaction to the question and critics to the impressio
n
.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Paradigm of Humanity View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Oct 2011
Location: Konstantiniyye
Status: Offline
Points: 916
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paradigm of Humanity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jan 2012 at 19:16
It's vastly exaggerated, even we are speaking about most intense cases. It's nothing compare to Ghengis's, Fascists's, Commies's and Imperialists's accomlishments. You have to consider that as a remnant argument of anti-religious sentiment against religion which turned all europe to secular countries.


Edited by Paradigm of Humanity - 09 Jan 2012 at 19:19
the single postmodern virtue of obsessive egalitarianism
Back to Top
JPCC View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 09 Jan 2012
Location: Paris, France
Status: Offline
Points: 23
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JPCC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jan 2012 at 20:28
Sorry, you are confusing violence in general and religious violence. Every one agrees that violence has existed since man exists. My question is whether monotheism added a new type of violence, a new motivation for violence, which arises from its will to impose his god to other people.
So the question is : have other people killed people or destroyed what other people cherished just for making them ador their own god?
Genghis Khan killed for power or for money, never to impose his gods.
The first answer to the question about facsim and communism is the same : there was no god involved. A more sophisticated answer is that it is not just by accident that communism and fascism developed in former christian countries, but they borrowed from monotheism the belief in one unique truth, the hatred for pluralism, the promise of paradise on earth.
But all what I say here is theory. I wanted to know if some historians have tried to check whether real history confirms this theory or not. It's the reason why I've tried to make definitions as precise as possible.
Back to Top
Paradigm of Humanity View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Oct 2011
Location: Konstantiniyye
Status: Offline
Points: 916
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paradigm of Humanity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jan 2012 at 20:42
While otherwise is true too but most cases this violence used for bringing God's word to others. We can't judge intents but likely these sometimes used as a camouflage for other porposes.

Violence have a wide meaning, it's not just used for "tyranny" word. It's also used for applying force in a more general meaning. I used it mainly in general meaning, still otherwise is true too.


Edited by Paradigm of Humanity - 10 Jan 2012 at 19:27
Back to Top
JPCC View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 09 Jan 2012
Location: Paris, France
Status: Offline
Points: 23
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JPCC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jan 2012 at 20:50
I'm well aware of  the difficulty. Therefore I 'm calling to professional historians, who would dare tackle the issue. When you look at religious violence around the globe, you cannot escape being struck by the fact that wherever it happens, one at least of the belligerents is monotheist. Therefore I think the question would deserve some work!
Back to Top
Paradigm of Humanity View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Oct 2011
Location: Konstantiniyye
Status: Offline
Points: 916
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paradigm of Humanity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jan 2012 at 20:54
Beacause half of the world is monoteists LOL

Edited by Paradigm of Humanity - 09 Jan 2012 at 20:54
the single postmodern virtue of obsessive egalitarianism
Back to Top
JPCC View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 09 Jan 2012
Location: Paris, France
Status: Offline
Points: 23
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JPCC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jan 2012 at 20:57
This did not escape my attention. But there is a gap between half and almost all !
Back to Top
Paradigm of Humanity View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Oct 2011
Location: Konstantiniyye
Status: Offline
Points: 916
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paradigm of Humanity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jan 2012 at 21:05
I already considered other points too. First, people from different etnicities, different religions, different races, different cultures etc... more likely gonna conflict. Second, your generalization is too controversial like any other generalization...

I'm not sufficient in English, sorry about that... Tongue


Edited by Paradigm of Humanity - 09 Jan 2012 at 21:06
the single postmodern virtue of obsessive egalitarianism
Back to Top
JPCC View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 09 Jan 2012
Location: Paris, France
Status: Offline
Points: 23
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JPCC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jan 2012 at 21:14
I'm just a poor French guy!
Once again, motivations for conflict always are plural.
But that is not a reason for not trying to analyse, and if it is true that monotheism adds a specific mtivation to violence, it could be useful  to acknowledge it. One of the issue is that even if islam today seems at the forefront, accusing islam alone misses the point. 
Back to Top
Paradigm of Humanity View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Oct 2011
Location: Konstantiniyye
Status: Offline
Points: 916
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paradigm of Humanity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jan 2012 at 21:24
Hmm... Actually I spoke as taking christianity as reference, just beacause secularist in my country using western terminologies when trying to analyze something related to Islam, which is a serious lack of perspective...
the single postmodern virtue of obsessive egalitarianism
Back to Top
Mukarrib View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jan 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mukarrib Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jan 2012 at 21:30
Very few wars are actually fought _for_ religion. Most are fought for land and resources, religion sometimes just becomes a convenient dividing line.

Also in the ancient world, religion was an integral part of identity for most cultures, and so religion was no more the cause of a war than national or ethnic identity were. The identity didn't usually cause the war, but it was one characteristic which distinguished the different sides.

Back to Top
JPCC View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 09 Jan 2012
Location: Paris, France
Status: Offline
Points: 23
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JPCC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jan 2012 at 22:36
Please, can we keep the question: has any historian investigated the question (right or wrong) of the incremental religious violence attributable to monotheism ?
Thanks
Back to Top
Paradigm of Humanity View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Oct 2011
Location: Konstantiniyye
Status: Offline
Points: 916
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paradigm of Humanity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jan 2012 at 22:44
Well, I just commented for general religious violence. Never tought spesifically about monoteist violence (?)... Maybe you must revise subject of your question to "organised religions" (since they dictates social and politic orders unlike other religions)...
the single postmodern virtue of obsessive egalitarianism
Back to Top
JPCC View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 09 Jan 2012
Location: Paris, France
Status: Offline
Points: 23
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JPCC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jan 2012 at 23:24
Personalyy I think the major threat does not come from "organised religions" - all of them were more or less so before the democratic revolutions- , but from the belief in a unique truth. Therefore my focus on monotheism
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jan 2012 at 12:00
Monotheists aren't the only believers in unique truth. Polytheists believe in unique truth too. So do large numbers (if possibly not all of them) atheists believe their truth is unique too.
 
Believers in variable truth are basically pretty rare all around.
 
Incidentally I'd like to have an example of some war that was fought to convert one side to the other's religion.


Edited by gcle2003 - 10 Jan 2012 at 12:02
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
JPCC View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 09 Jan 2012
Location: Paris, France
Status: Offline
Points: 23
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JPCC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jan 2012 at 13:45
It's one thing to believe some unique truth exists, most people indeed do , except some Sophists. But it's quite anouther thing to assert  that you hold the unique truth, and want to impose it to others. Most reasonable people look for the truth, but consider as dangerous those who pretend they hold the truth and it is the unique one.

Haven't you heard of the religious wars in Europe? of the Saint Barthelemey day? not to speak of the Cruisades or the Jihads ? I d'on't mean that conversion was the only motivation for thses, but they would probably have had a dramatically different look if the religious motivation, replacing the other's god, had not been there.
Other example : the systematic destruction of statues and rituals by the christian missionnaires, destroying  the indigeneous social fabric as a consequence
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jan 2012 at 14:58
The crusaders didn't atempt to convert anyone. Even in the Kingdom of Jerusalem, Roman Catholics were only an elite minority, conent to rule over the other Christians and the Muslims. (Much the same being true of the Arab/Turkish states they were surrounded by.)
 
Heni of Navarre may have converted to Roman Catholicism on the basis that Paris was worth a Mass, but his opponents basically were not trying to convert him, but to stop him becoming King of France. Nor was Condé particularly interested in converting the Valois, while their supporters didn't seem interested in converting the Huguenots on St Barthomolews' Day. I don't recall the English in Ireland trying to convert anyone either. Nor were the Arab empires founded on concern to convert everyone to Islam either.
 
The German religious wars were no more than attempts by various dynasties to parcel out between them the territories of the Empire. It certainly wasn't a case of Catholics one side and Protestants the other, each trying to spread their faith.
 
Moreover you were talking about wars and civil wars. The Spanish in the Americas may have done the sort of thing you mention, but that wasn't in wartime. Same goesfor Henry VIII's suppression of the monasteries; the English Puritans' destruction of churches and church ornaments under the Commonwealth admttedly was in the course of a civil war, but that again wasn't based on trying to convert anyone religiously.
 
Of course there have been missionaries going all over the place trying to convert people to their religion, but that doesn't mean they fought wars to spread it. (And anyway if you look at China and Japan you'll see examples of non-monotheist waging of wars, the Pacific end of ww2 being one of them.)
 
Honestly if you think Ferdinand and Isabel were offered a choice between (a) conquering Granada, or (b) having Granada stay independent but convert to Christianity, do you think they would have chosen (b)?
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
JPCC View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 09 Jan 2012
Location: Paris, France
Status: Offline
Points: 23
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JPCC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jan 2012 at 15:06
Thanks. I should add you to the list of people I've begun to establish who deploy intelligence and eurdition with the aim to deny that monotheist religions never have tried to convert anyone by means of violence. Here are some authors of that kind

-         Paul Valadier, Violence et monothéismes. Ce texte est une bonne illustration des arguments couramment utilisés pour nier la violence monothéiste, le premier d'entre eux étant bien sûr d'accuser de manque de respect et de violence celui qui ose évoquer une telle chose : l'accusé se fait accusateur ! Réf: SER-SA | Études2003/6 - Tome 398, disponible sur

<www.cairn.info/load_pdf.php?ID_ARTICLE=ETU_986_0755>.

[Paul Valadier est Jésuite, docteur en théologie et en philosophie. professeur au centre Sèvres à Paris (Facultés jésuites de Paris), rédacteur en chef de la revue Études. On se référera plusieurs fois à lui dans le courant de ce texte.]

-         Frédéric Rognon Monothéismes et Violence : quelles Dialectiques ?, 17ème congrès de l' Association Internationale d'études Medico-Psychologiques Et Religieuses 2006, disponible sur  <http://www.aiempr.org/articles/pdf/aiempr21.pdf>

[Frédéric Rognon est pasteur de l’Eglise réformée de France et professeur de philosophie à la faculté de théologie protestante de l'Université Marc Bloch (Strasbourg)]

-         Jean Flori, historien médiéviste français, auteur de Guerre sainte, jihad, croisade. Violence et religion dans le christianisme et l'islam, Paris, 2002 (éd. du Seuil : Point Histoire) : mettant en avant l'argument de l'herméneutique, il considère que c'est "par compréhension fautive de la vérité tenue par eux pour révélée que les chrétiens ont si souvent été poussés à agir de manière intolérante, en contradiction, le plus souvent ou en tout cas souvent, avec cette vérité révélée elle-même." (échange avec l'auteur),

-         William Cavanaugh, théologien américain s'attache, dans Le mythe de la violence religieuse, L'Homme Nouveau, 2010, à dénoncer les thèses de John Hick, Charles Kimball, Richard Wentz (cf. note précédente, n° 64 p. 13), arguant qu'il est impossible, au sein d'une violence quelconque, de distinguer, voire même  de définir des "mobiles religieux".

-         Jochen Hippler, Political violence in Western and Muslim societies, Europäischer- islamogischer Kultur Dialog, Stuttgart: ifa, 2006, disponible sur  < http://www.ifa.de/fileadmin/pdf/dokument/gewaltstudie_en.pdf>. Il développe la thèse fonctionnaliste, la religion ou l'idéologie n'étant qu'un alibi pour des objectifs autrement concrets, contredite dans le même document par Amr Hamzawy,  research director and senior associate at the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut.

Quant à Jan Assmann, il a explique le mécanisme de la violence monothéiste dans Le prix du monothéisme op. cit., pour revenir en arrière dans Violence et monothéisme, op. cit.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jan 2012 at 18:56
Originally posted by JPCC JPCC wrote:

Thanks. I should add you to the list of people I've begun to establish who deploy intelligence and eurdition with the aim to deny that monotheist religions never have tried to convert anyone by means of violence.
But that's not what I am denying and not what you originally claimed. Most religions (including the secular religions) have tried at some point to convert people to their beliefs, sometimes through violence. My point was that they don't/didn't go to war to do so. And s a secondary point, that I see no reason to distinguish between monotheist and other religions here.
 
If you want to claim that people who think they are absolutely right are more dangerous than people who don't, then I'll go along with you, but not too far, since people who don't care whether they are right or wrong are also dangerous. Much organised crime would exemplify that (though there are at least hints that the Sicilian derivatives do recognise the absolute rightness of some oftheir tenets, like omertà.
 
I find it curious that you, apparently in support of your argument, should quote people who disagree with you though I would agree that on the face of it they are potentially biassed witnesses.
 
As a longtime resident of Luxembourg, I don't personally mind your French, but as a moderator, I should warn you that posting in foreign languages without translation is against the code of conduct here.
 
Quote Here are some authors of that kind

-         Paul Valadier, Violence et monothéismes. Ce texte est une bonne illustration des arguments couramment utilisés pour nier la violence monothéiste, le premier d'entre eux étant bien sûr d'accuser de manque de respect et de violence celui qui ose évoquer une telle chose : l'accusé se fait accusateur ! Réf: SER-SA | Études2003/6 - Tome 398, disponible sur

<www.cairn.info/load_pdf.php?ID_ARTICLE=ETU_986_0755>.

[Paul Valadier est Jésuite, docteur en théologie et en philosophie. professeur au centre Sèvres à Paris (Facultés jésuites de Paris), rédacteur en chef de la revue Études. On se référera plusieurs fois à lui dans le courant de ce texte.]

-         Frédéric Rognon Monothéismes et Violence : quelles Dialectiques ?, 17ème congrès de l' Association Internationale d'études Medico-Psychologiques Et Religieuses 2006, disponible sur  <http://www.aiempr.org/articles/pdf/aiempr21.pdf>

[Frédéric Rognon est pasteur de l’Eglise réformée de France et professeur de philosophie à la faculté de théologie protestante de l'Université Marc Bloch (Strasbourg)]

-         Jean Flori, historien médiéviste français, auteur de Guerre sainte, jihad, croisade. Violence et religion dans le christianisme et l'islam, Paris, 2002 (éd. du Seuil : Point Histoire) : mettant en avant l'argument de l'herméneutique, il considère que c'est "par compréhension fautive de la vérité tenue par eux pour révélée que les chrétiens ont si souvent été poussés à agir de manière intolérante, en contradiction, le plus souvent ou en tout cas souvent, avec cette vérité révélée elle-même." (échange avec l'auteur),

-         William Cavanaugh, théologien américain s'attache, dans Le mythe de la violence religieuse, L'Homme Nouveau, 2010, à dénoncer les thèses de John Hick, Charles Kimball, Richard Wentz (cf. note précédente, n° 64 p. 13), arguant qu'il est impossible, au sein d'une violence quelconque, de distinguer, voire même  de définir des "mobiles religieux".

-         Jochen Hippler, Political violence in Western and Muslim societies, Europäischer- islamogischer Kultur Dialog, Stuttgart: ifa, 2006, disponible sur  < http://www.ifa.de/fileadmin/pdf/dokument/gewaltstudie_en.pdf>. Il développe la thèse fonctionnaliste, la religion ou l'idéologie n'étant qu'un alibi pour des objectifs autrement concrets, contredite dans le même document par Amr Hamzawy,  research director and senior associate at the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut.

Quant à Jan Assmann, il a explique le mécanisme de la violence monothéiste dans Le prix du monothéisme op. cit., pour revenir en arrière dans Violence et monothéisme, op. cit.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
JPCC View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 09 Jan 2012
Location: Paris, France
Status: Offline
Points: 23
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JPCC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jan 2012 at 22:49
Thank you for your patience! And excuse the French!
First, my point is violence. War is just an example. Destroying others'gods, like missionaires do with even if it is with clear conscience to obey to their god, is another violence, in so far as it destroys the social fabric.
Second , no, most religions have not tried  to convert people to their beliefs. Monotheist religions, yes. Bouddhism also, but in general without violence. A religion tries to convert other people if it is "universalist", if it is  convinced to hold the only truth. To my knowledge, this is a feature specific to monotheism . Bouddhism thinks it has the best way, but doees not deny anyone the right to take other ways : it's the difference between truth and way. Polytheist religions have no such pretence. And Taoism (again a way) commonly tolerates Bouddhism and Confucianism
The pretention to hold the unique truth is really specific to monotheism . It's not the unicity of god which matters, but its jealousy, its order to destroy idols, that is other peoples' gods : no other religion has ever given such an order. This is the root of the specific monotheist violence.
My demand is whether this has been ever checked by historians, or whether it could be.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jan 2012 at 13:09
I don't think monotheists are the only ones to believe they have the unique truth. Obviously the Gnostics did, and Gnosticism is only monotheist at a pinch (belief in a supreme God is not monotheism, which implies only one God). The early Jews weren't monotheist as is obvious from the first commandment. Buddhists and Hindus also claim to have unique truth (though different sects or preachers may have different views as to what it is).
 
I think what you are feeling towards here is that only monotheists believe that everyone should conform to the same behaviour, and are willing to enforce that behaviour through violence.  That would seem to be more arguable[1], but you still have to deal with situations like the Roman Empire, which insisted on behaviourable conformity even while it was still polytheist (for quite practical, indeed secular, reasons).
Another problem in here is the fact that it is difficult to think of any non-Abrahamic monotheistic religions. Do you count Zoroastrianism as monotheist? Akhnaten counts presumably, and would apparently give some support to your position.  But it's difficult to present a case based on such a tiny sample.
 
In answer to your question though, no I can't help. I can't think of anyone who has produced anyhing substantial (or even insubstantial) on the topic, though didn't Gibbon to some extent start it off?
 
[1] While Buddhists may believe they hold unique truth, they are (for the most part) willing to let other people find their own way toward it.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
JPCC View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 09 Jan 2012
Location: Paris, France
Status: Offline
Points: 23
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JPCC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jan 2012 at 17:33
It's not the unicity of god which matters, but its jealousy, its order to destroy idols, that is other peoples' gods : to my knowledge, no non-abrahamic religion has ever given such an order.Early Jews thought that way, from the day they wrote the first commandment and ordered to destriy idols, say at least from Josias. Buddhists and Hindus never told that. Gnosticism : I think there have always been such a minority that they could be subjected (like Cathares), but never subjects.

Roman Empire's persecutions. Yes Christians make a lot offuss about it, but never speak of their own persecutions against pagans. It would deserve more detailed explanations, but Roman pesecutions have been concentrated in time, driven by "inner order" issues, and it was because Chrisians refused what was considered as Roman citizenship that they were persecuted. So Roman persecutions against Christians never have been nearly as systematic as Christins' persecutions agaiants pagans, and not driven by proselytic motivations from the Romans' side. But what is still more enlightening is the behaviour with foreign people : Romans never destroyed foreigners' gods, Christians and Muslims have done it on a world scale and for centuries.

I agree that non abrahamic monotheist religions are not very relevant: Akhenaton history is one shot, with no descendence, no dogma, just rituals. Zoroastrianism would be more interesting, seems to have been tolerant, but we know too little about it.

So I think the biig striking contrats is between abrahamic religions on one side, polytheist and asian religions on the other side.

I hope I made my case now clear. I understand you don"t know of any study in that direction. I haven't found any either, except polemist views without detailed argumentation, and am very surprised at it. Coming to World Historia Forum was probably my last hope! Thanks if you can think of any help, that is any historian who would be motivated for working on that issue.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jan 2012 at 17:40
Originally posted by JPCC JPCC wrote:


So I think the biig striking contrats is between abrahamic religions on one side, polytheist and asian religions on the other side.

 
No big contrast, even the peacefull smiling buddhist monks had their field day in India, SE Asia and during the mongol rule of Persia before their conversion.
 
Romans built  temple for Mars at the very heart of every major city thy conquered.
 
Religion and war are almost synonimous.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jan 2012 at 20:21
It occurs to me it is pretty difficult for anyone to throw down the idols of an Abrahamic religion since they don't have idols. Nor can you destroy an ineffable God. However, the first Temple at Jerusalem was sacked twice by polytheist Assyrians and destroyed by polytheist Babylonians, while the second was actually rebuilt by a Zoroastrian, only to be destroyed again by polytheistic Romans.
 
 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
JPCC View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 09 Jan 2012
Location: Paris, France
Status: Offline
Points: 23
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JPCC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jan 2012 at 21:00
??? Idol is a word invented by abrahamic religions to designate other religions' gods, which they have destroyed whenever they had the opportunity to do it, in obeyance to their god's order.
Back to Top
JPCC View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 09 Jan 2012
Location: Paris, France
Status: Offline
Points: 23
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JPCC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jan 2012 at 22:00
[/QUOTE]
 
No big contrast, even the peacefull smiling buddhist monks had their field day in India, SE Asia and during the mongol rule of Persia before their conversion.
 
Romans built  temple for Mars at the very heart of every major city thy conquered.
 
Religion and war are almost synonimous.
 
Al-Jassas
[/QUOTE]

What do you mean by field day? Buddhist were not always peaceful, but nothing to compare with Europe religious wars. I can recommend serious books on that matter, but iin French. I'm sure many more exist in English.
Romans, Greeks, Persians built temples to their gods for thmeselves, not to impose to defeated foreigners their own gods.
"Religion and war are almost synonimous": this is as instructive as to "say man is silly" ! It's sheer disinformation, which willingly or unwillingly intends  to conceal monotheist specific violence.
Back to Top
Goban View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 791
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Goban Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2012 at 02:57
Well, as with any systematic survey, your research should begin with the genesis of monotheism and spread of the Formative Abrahamic traditions in particular. There are many sources (mainly archaeological) available that concentrate on these subjects. So , in a way there are many authors who have written on your subject as well Big smile


Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2012 at 13:49
Originally posted by JPCC JPCC wrote:

??? Idol is a word invented by abrahamic religions to designate other religions' gods, which they have destroyed whenever they had the opportunity to do it, in obeyance to their god's order.
The genesis of the word isimmaterial. The thing itself goes back into prehistory, certainly the Neolithic. That the word 'electricity' was invented in modern times doesn't mean there was no lighning in ancent Egypt.
 
When you wrote "Idol is a word invented by ..." you should have written "'Idol' is a word invented by...." Christian sources (I gather) invented the label[1]. They didn't invent the thing labelled.
 
[1] Actually they took the label 'eidolon' from Greek which meant any kind of image, and altered the meaning to mean a image that is worshipped.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
JPCC View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 09 Jan 2012
Location: Paris, France
Status: Offline
Points: 23
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JPCC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2012 at 17:30
Do you know any religion except monotheist ones which orders in its sacred text to destroy others'gods? I personnaly don't : neither polytheists like ancient Greeks nor Hindus nor Buddhists nor Taoists..

I agree things may exist even if they have no name, like tolerance in Ancient Grece. But such a thing as burning others' gods in my view had not being practised or imagined before Hebrews (and Akhenaton of course, see above) . Thank you to tell me if I'm mistaken
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2012 at 19:17
My comment wasn't to do with whether or not any particular religion 'destroyed' the other's gods. It was simply to point out that pretty well by definition you can't 'destroy' a monotheist's gods because they don't have icons or idols or whatever you call them to worship in the first place. So only polytheists can be on the receiving end.  
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.