Monotheism and law, and the irony of modern religion

[Huckleman2000]

I'm watching a History Channel show about the ancient Jews, and it struck me that the development of monotheism is more than just a shift in viewing the metaphysical world. Paradoxically, it's also a giant leap towards a life that doesn't really need any gods at all.

Polytheists had a complex worldview that was more like religious whack-a-mole than a code of ethical living. Want good crops? Do the fertility rites to the gods of harvest. Want victory in war? Sacrifice to the gods of war. Want success in love? Do the love-god rituals. Pay attention to the priests and priestesses of each various diety, depending on what your hopes and dreams were.

But with monotheism, the Jews codified a set of customs, learnings, and ideas that their experience told them would lead its followers to have a better chance at a successful life. It took fundamental power from the Priestly classes and put it into the power of the Law; removed it from the whim of priests and rulers and embodied it in a single, all-powerful construct of beliefs that existed outside the physical world. If the whole tribe bought into this set of beliefs, they could never be conquered, for their 'tribeness' grew from unifying ideas, not from the circumstances of whose thumb they happened to be under in the physical world.

I think this is what some are getting at when they point to the ancient Jews as forming the foundation of the Rule of Law.

This unified set of property law, dietary customs, and so forth worked so well that it became the dominant belief system, and human societies flourished over time. But now that much of the mysticism of the natural world has been explained in the course of scientific progress, the hand of a monotheistic god is more difficult to see, or has been explained away entirely. Modern humans can look at The Law for what it is - a way for people to live productively together.
The irony is this: The Law no longer needs a god. And those who cling to their god(s) above Law pose a major threat to peaceful coexistence.

Did I learn this somewhere and just remember it? Or should I just put down the bong.

 

[Jet Black]

The irony is this: The Law no longer needs a god. And those who cling to their god(s) above Law pose a major threat to peaceful coexistence.

Amen brother. I would just like society to evolve to the point where we place more importance on this life (you know, the one we know exists?) as opposed to what happens to us when we die.

That way, instead of someone dedicating there entire life to "The Giant Spaghetti Monster" The could... I don't know. Discover the cure for cancer. Create a colony on Mars. Create stable Hydrogen fusion.

...Instead of praying 8 hours a day and tithe-ing there paycheck to a corrupt church.


Grr! >.> I don't have problems with religion. I just don't like corruption.


Also

*Gurgling noise from stolen bong*

No more for you <_<'

 

[keeblercrumb]

I'm watching a History Channel show about the ancient Jews, and it struck me that the development of monotheism is more than just a shift in viewing the metaphysical world. Paradoxically, it's also a giant leap towards a life that doesn't really need any gods at all.

Polytheists had a complex worldview that was more like religious whack-a-mole than a code of ethical living. Want good crops? Do the fertility rites to the gods of harvest. Want victory in war? Sacrifice to the gods of war. Want success in love? Do the love-god rituals. Pay attention to the priests and priestesses of each various diety, depending on what your hopes and dreams were.

But with monotheism, the Jews codified a set of customs, learnings, and ideas that their experience told them would lead its followers to have a better chance at a successful life. It took fundamental power from the Priestly classes and put it into the power of the Law; removed it from the whim of priests and rulers and embodied it in a single, all-powerful construct of beliefs that existed outside the physical world. If the whole tribe bought into this set of beliefs, they could never be conquered, for their 'tribeness' grew from unifying ideas, not from the circumstances of whose thumb they happened to be under in the physical world.

I think this is what some are getting at when they point to the ancient Jews as forming the foundation of the Rule of Law.

This unified set of property law, dietary customs, and so forth worked so well that it became the dominant belief system, and human societies flourished over time. But now that much of the mysticism of the natural world has been explained in the course of scientific progress, the hand of a monotheistic god is more difficult to see, or has been explained away entirely. Modern humans can look at The Law for what it is - a way for people to live productively together.
The irony is this: The Law no longer needs a god. And those who cling to their god(s) above Law pose a major threat to peaceful coexistence.

Did I learn this somewhere and just remember it? Or should I just put down the bong.

Wow... man. Heavy.

Actually, that is pretty insightful and I certainly never looked at it that way. Interesting.

And... cough, cough, cough......

Good shit!

-KC

 

[3113]

It took fundamental power from the Priestly classes and put it into the power of the Law; removed it from the whim of priests and rulers and embodied it in a single, all-powerful construct of beliefs that existed outside the physical world.

And then Christianity in the form of Roman converts who kept to their ways of doing things rather than switching over to that of the Jewish way of doing things (including Jewish laws and such)--took that monotheism and gave it right back to the whim of priests and rulers who, let us not forget, they said were chosen by God and Spoke right to God...and if everyone else wanted to make God happy, they needed to do what those priests and rulers said.

Hence, friend Huckleman, the theory goes awry. Or not, as I'd likely argue that the Christian Church is not monotheistic

 

[Weird Harold]

I'm watching a History Channel show about the ancient Jews, and it struck me that the development of monotheism is more than just a shift in viewing the metaphysical world. Paradoxically, it's also a giant leap towards a life that doesn't really need any gods at all.

Only one problem with that premise: The Hebrews were NOT the first to adopt monotheism OR the Rule of Law.

I'm not sure if Akenaten or Zoroastrianism was the first monotheistic religion, but both predate the Hebrews.

Hamurabi's Code also predates the Jew's adoption of monotheism.

 

[CrazyCatGuy]

Let me preface this by saying that i am an athiest, and i believe that society could go on (in theory) perfectly without religion... but i do understand some people may want something to believe in, and for some of those people, a religion is the perfect choice: it gives their lives meaning, an ULTRA long term goal (be it heaven or nirvana or reincarnation into a higher form), or even as simple as something for them to blame when things don't go the way they want to. I accept religion as something that we might need in society, but i do NOT accept it as something to be force fed to everyone.

The hierarchy of a lot of religions seems just like the bureaucracy of nations with the different levels of rulers, and in the end, the effectiveness is just as good or bad as a nation. You may get lucky with a truely good and benovelent King/Mayor/Pope/Priest, or you can get screwed with a bad one... In the end, it just comes down to the individual... and not God.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Only one problem with that premise: The Hebrews were NOT the first to adopt monotheism OR the Rule of Law.

I'm not sure if Akenaten or Zoroastrianism was the first monotheistic religion, but both predate the Hebrews.

Hamurabi's Code also predates the Jew's adoption of monotheism.

Yeah, I kinda knew in the back of my mind that there were other examples of monotheism and codified law in ancient civilizations.

Nevertheless, whomever came up with it first, we have an historical account over a long time of living with the Law from the Jews, so they got the History Channel show that got me thinking.

I didn't mean to somehow imply that the Jews were entirely responsible, but it is the one religion that has endured from the ancient Fertile Crescent civilizations, and the one that pulled several ideas together. Judaism took hold, while Zoroastrianism faded for some reason. It doesn't change the premise, that the idea of monotheism and an eternal Law led to advances in civilization.

 

[emap]

Judaism survived because the peoples who followed it would not switch to whatever religion their conqueror's followed. So jews were slaves in Egypt, and Africa and certain area's of Europe, which is why they are found in most every country actually.

You could say it was stupid to not follow the same religion as the people with the bigger weapons. Thopugh when you think about it, because of their steadfast following of one god, they converted large numbers of their conquerors and paved the way for Christianity. Which actually is not a terribly good thing, but well there are worse things.

 

[English Lady]

Judaism took hold, while Zoroastrianism faded for some reason. It doesn't change the premise, that the idea of monotheism and an eternal Law led to advances in civilization.

God really knew what he was talking about with the whole commandments thing, then

That's how I see it.

 

[colddiesel]

Lawyers started in the drains

Only one problem with that premise: The Hebrews were NOT the first to adopt monotheism OR the Rule of Law.

I'm not sure if Akenaten or Zoroastrianism was the first monotheistic religion, but both predate the Hebrews.

Hamurabi's Code also predates the Jew's adoption of monotheism.

I don't think the rule of law had any connection to the development of monotheism.You can make a better case for arguing that law was required to fix the drains. In ancient Mesopotamia the first regulations enforced by kings were for the maintenance and preservation of drainage ditches(for irrigation) A number of tablets recording this pre date Hammurabis Code. - and I like the idea that the first lawyers crawled out of the drains.

 

[rgraham666]

Well, there is one major drawback to monotheism.

One thing polytheists had was a connection to the world. They saw it as a living thing and humans were just a small part of it.

Monotheism destroyed that sense of place. Now our relationship is with God, not the world.

 

[colddiesel]

. It doesn't change the premise, that the idea of monotheism and an eternal Law led to advances in civilization.

So how do you account for the fact that The Greeks, the Chinese, the Indus Valley the Egyptians and the Persians all had civilisations far in advance of the Jews or any other monotheistic society.

It is also worth noting that most modern Jewish scholars now accept that the Jewish people learned a much more profound concept of God through studing the works of the Persians and Medes during their captivity in Ninevah and Babylon.

I think it is counter productive to assign causation to a particular school of thought or religion. It is much more productive to examine what the great religions have in common. The most obvious is that all of the founders of the great religions were teachers of ethical behavior. They said 'behave like this', they did not say 'believe in this', it's chuches and heirarchies which adopt the latter approach.

 

[xssve]

"The law was made for man not man for the law".

--J. Christ.

 

[xssve]

So how do you account for the fact that The Greeks, the Chinese, the Indus Valley the Egyptians and the Persians all had civilisations far in advance of the Jews or any other monotheistic society.

Easy availability and access to natural resources, including labor - pretty much all civilizations will thrive under these conditions where free market conditions tend to prevail natually.

As resources become scarcer, fuedal forms of political economy evolve to protect vested interests, economies go Zero sum, and these civilizations go into decline, largey due to the simple fact that fuedalistic social economies tend to punish innovation as a threat to the established order.

Hard to say where the Hebrew might have gotten, they were generating enough wealth in an economically declining region to keep the Romans interested - probobly from acting as middlemen in trade between the larger, wealthier civilizations that surrounded them. The Romans weren't occupying Phonecia, Persia or or the Tigris-Euphrates region at the time, and after the Diaspora, Roman power went into decline.

Free market pressures always come from the bottom up: rarely, if ever, from the top down.

 

[rgraham666]

Free market pressures always come from the bottom up: rarely, if ever, from the top down.

Which is why I laugh when many people start touting 'the free market'. Most often they are people who are or want to be members of the upper class. And I know when they talk about 'the free market' they really mean 'The economy the way it works now which people like me derive the maximum benefits from.'

Humans.

 

[DesertPirate]

Which is why I laugh when many people start touting 'the free market'. Most often they are people who are or want to be members of the upper class. And I know when they talk about 'the free market' they really mean 'The economy the way it works now which people like me derive the maximum benefits from.'

Humans.

That is why every economic theory fails in practice, they left out the variable that blows every equation and formula to hell. Human greed which seems to be infinite!

 

[rgraham666]

My favourite non-fiction author says that economists are closely related to weather people. "Rarely right, but devoid of memory and thus cheerful of being wrong."

 

[3113]

You could say it was stupid to not follow the same religion as the people with the bigger weapons. Thopugh when you think about it, because of their steadfast following of one god, they converted large numbers of their conquerors and paved the way for Christianity. Which actually is not a terribly good thing, but well there are worse things.

Um, not quite. Judaism was not is and is not an easy religion to convert to. Not like Islam or Christianity where saying you are Islamic or a quick baptism gets you converted. And to make matters worse (sic), Judaism doesn't encourage conversions.

See, what you're missing here is the original intent of the monotheism. Jews didn't say "There's one god and only one god. Period." They said (originally), "Yahweh is our god and only he is our god. So we can't pray to any other gods." In short, they didn't say that the other gods didn't exist. The commandment "Thou shalt have no other god before me" is followed by the explaination, "For I am a jealous god" (Yahweh says this twice by the way: Ex 34:14, Deut 6:15). Now think about it for a moment: if there ain't any other gods, what does GOD have to be jealous about? Why not accept prayers to "other gods" given that they must be prayers to him as HE is the only god?

Do you see? Only the Jews, the chosen of Yahweh, get to pray to Yahweh. It's an exclusive club. When Christianity came around, there was a schism, the Jews who thought it should be just for Jews (including, I believe, Peter), and those, like Paul, who thought it should be for everyone. Paul's way of thinking won out, and THAT is why Christianity became a popular religion. Because it welcomed converts and preached it's religion. Judaism never welcomed converts, and still doesn't preach it's religion to anyone but other Jews (have you EVER had Jews knocking on your door saying, "Do you believe in God....?"). Which is why Judaism has always been and still is a small religion.

In addition, you're assuming that ancient religions demanded conversion like much of Christianity did from the time of Constantine (who insisted on a "state" religion). Sorry, no. Egyptians, Greeks, Romans really didn't give a shit what anyone, even their own countrymen believed in. It was very Laissez-faire, and since it was kosher (you'll excuse the word) to have more than one god, people could pick and chose what they needed when they needed it. If you were a follower of Isis and the followers of Jupiter had bigger guns, well, you could pray to BOTH Isis and Jupiter. You didn't have to sacrifice your belief in one god/goddess to pray to someone else's gods/goddesses, and most ancient conquerors just conquered. They didn't try to convert folk. In fact, a lot of them picked up and added in the gods of those they conquered. Hence, Rome had a sizable cult to Isis.

As for the implication that people surrender their religion and convert to that of whoever has the big guns, yes, some do. But in most cases, they don't. People don't give up on their sports teams when they lose--or even have a long time losing streak. Why should they give up on their religion for that reason, whatever their religion is? Christianity had to work very hard to forcibly convert people; missionaries by the scores had to go out and convince people that they were wrong, scare them, beat them, start up schools to indoctrinate them, burn non-believers in the public square. On a milder note, it had to take pagan gods and turn them into Christian saints (as it did with the Irish goddess of fire, Brigit), thus allowing people who refused to give up their worship of such gods to keep worshipping them...but as "Christian"...er...well, we won't call the gods, but there you go.

So, the steadfastness of the Jews to their religion really didn't have anything to do with inspiring a great many people to convert to monotheism. The brutal insistence that theirs was the one true religion, and stubborn refusal to be tolerant of other religions on the part of monotheistic Christianity and Islam did that.

 

[rgraham666]

Brutal too often being the operative word.

 

[Weird Harold]

In addition, you're assuming that ancient religions demanded conversion like much of Christianity did from the time of Constantine (who insisted on a "state" religion). Sorry, no. Egyptians, Greeks, Romans really didn't give a shit what anyone, even their own countrymen believed in. It was very Laissez-faire, and since it was kosher (you'll excuse the word) to have more than one god, people could pick and chose what they needed when they needed it.

Actually, the Egyptians provided the first example of "regio curia"(sp) when Akenaten banned worship of any God other than Aten. I'm not sure about Zoraster, but I think it was intolerant of competition as well.

colddiesel's comment about the Jews learning from Babylon and Persia (the home of Zoroaster) remind me of the observation that the Hebrews may have developed their concept of monotheisim during Akenaten's reign in Egypt.

I'm not even sure that the Hebrews can be credited with originating the concept of being God's Chosen People -- which is at the heart of the historic problems with Christianity and Islam, IMHO.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I've often wondered how our societies would be today if we'd remained polytheistic. More flexible, more tolerant?

Would the differences between law and religion be clearer to more people?

Perhaps, although I've seen horrible intolerances within, for instance, Hindu societies.

 

[3113]

Actually, the Egyptians provided the first example of "regio curia"(sp) when Akenaten banned worship of any God other than Aten. I'm not sure about Zoraster, but I think it was intolerant of competition as well.

Well, first of all, when I said the Romans, Greeks and Egyptians didn't try to convert people, I meant in general and as a people--that is, according to their usual religions. If we're talking about religious fanatics, than all bets are off because every religion that ever was, I'm quite sure has had one or more. There will always be individuals who try to force others to believe as they do. That's nothing new or special.

The only thing that sets Akenaten apart is that he was a religious fanatic in a position of absolute power. He was Pharaoh who must be obeyed--even if the majority of his people weren't happy about it. But a fiat from the king of a country telling everyone that there's only one god is not quite the same thing as a country of monotheists who try to convince outsiders, strangers and the populations of other countries to convert either by way of missionaries or invasions. Akenaten was a single fanatic who tried to convert his own subjects...and, ultimately, failed.

There's some good arguments that Akenaten was assassinated for his regio curia, and the minute he was dead, the polytheistic priests came back and Egypt returned to the way it was...with most Egyptians very, very happy to bury and forget about Akenaten's monotheistic god and religion and get back to letting everyone worship as they liked.

So I believe my statement that Egypt, et al didn't care what gods others worshiped is valid, the blip of Akenaten's fanaticism notwithstanding.

 

[Emerald_Dragon]

One of the my main problems with organized religion is that so much of 'what came directly from God' has been edited, or completely discarded. leave it to the heirarchy of the church to screw things up.

The Catholic church began encorporating 'science' into its religion. An example of this was that the earth was the exact center of the universe. Galilieo (I can't spell today sorry) discovered a great many things, one of them being that the earth went around the sun. The poor man was made to recant in public or be burned at the stake and spent the rest of his life (15 years or so) under house arrest. The Catholic church finally got around to an official 'we were wrong and we apologise' to him in the 1990's. Hello!!!!

When the church became a political power, people became secondary and power and money took first place.

There are also a great many texts in the bible that have been heavily edited. For example, where the heck was Jesus between the age of 12 and 30. Quite a few people believe that he was traveling and learning about other religions. Some believe that he brought back the idea of reincarnation with him but it was edited out. The church wanted control of its members and the idea of reincarnation ment that the members had some control over 'improving the state of their soul' instead of having to confess and PAY for indulgences.

I firmly believe that religion should be flexable. You should be able to discuss and offer different interpretations of religious works without being a 'heretic' that needs to be burned at the stake.

As for myself, I am a sometimes practicing Lutheren that believes firmly in reincarntaion. As far as I am concerned we make our own fate and we get as many chances to fix it as we need. The life that you lead directly affects the life that you will have next time. The only thing God ever promised was to love us and take care of us after we died. That is the price of free will.

just my 2 cents

 

[Weird Harold]

The Catholic church began encorporating 'science' into its religion. An example of this was that the earth was the exact center of the universe. Galileo ... discovered a great many things, one of them being that the earth went around the sun. The poor man was made to recant in public or be burned at the stake and spent the rest of his life (15 years or so) under house arrest. The Catholic church finally got around to an official 'we were wrong and we apologise' to him in the 1990's. Hello!!!!

That's actually a mythic and highly inaccurate summation of Galileo's problems with the Church. He wasn't the first to propose, or even to "prove" that the planets orbit the Sun, nor was he the "inventer of the telescope."

As far as his trial and plea bargain, he got off very lightly since the Iquisition was active at the time, and less famous people were forced to confess under torture and given no chance to recant or apologise.

To save the trouble of researching the diverse sources, might I suggest the altertante reality novel The Galileo Affair by Eric Flint and and Andrew Dennis. It's part of the "Ring Of Fire" or "Grantville" series and some of the characters featured in earlier books are a little undeveloped when you read it as a standalone novel, but it's a fun read that pokes a LOT of fun about modern ignorance and misconceptions about historical figures like Galileo

Many of the important "discoveries" of Galileo's time were made by Jesuit Priests or Church backed "philosphers." Of course that entirely ignores the fact that many of those "discoveries" were simply translations from arabic or translationsof arabic translations of languages from even further east -- like Hindi, Chinese, Cambodian, etc.

Well, first of all, when I said the Romans, Greeks and Egyptians didn't try to convert people, I meant in general and as a people--that is, according to their usual religions. If we're talking about religious fanatics, than all bets are off because every religion that ever was, I'm quite sure has had one or more. There will always be individuals who try to force others to believe as they do. That's nothing new or special.]/Quote]

Akenaten was far from being the only fanatic in a position to impose regio curia, he was simply the most powerful and famous -- mostly because tomb robbers missed his son's tomb and Tutankamen's riches roused a lot of interest in that era particular era.

Rome -- as a government policy -- imposed a state religion wherever it conquered. I may not have banned other religions, but did require participation in the Roman religious observations, with the intent of supplanting the local religion(s) over time. Constantine simply followed that long-standing policy when he changed the "State Religion" of the Empire to Christianity. He only banned all other religions later -- as a reaction to the less than enthusiastic conversion of the pagans.

Individual Polytheists didn't particularly care which god(s) you worshipped (as long as it was from their pantheon or could be related to their pantheon) but Governments have always seen religion as a way to control the masses.

 

[Oblimo]

I'm not even sure that the Hebrews can be credited with originating the concept of being God's Chosen People -- which is at the heart of the historic problems with Christianity and Islam, IMHO.

They were a god's chosen people. I subscribe to the notion that the early Hebrews (and Genesis itself) is henotheist -- YHWH was the tribe's chosen god (and vice versa), and that monotheism as we know it today evolved from a very serious game of I Bet My Dad could Beat up Your Dad.