Is there any historical reason to why monotheistic religions became so popular in the west compared to the more common...

Is there any historical reason to why monotheistic religions became so popular in the west compared to the more common polytheistic ones from earlier?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=wS1jpgiKJUU
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

western civilization is abrahamic religion paired with agriculture. abrahamic religion has largely been monotheistic for at least a couple thousand years.
>is it weird western civ acts like western civ?
no

>compared to the more common polytheistic ones from earlier?[citation needed]
just because some civs that were next-door neighbors in antiquity had polytheistic is not evidence that it was more common than monotheism or anything else at the time. there isn't enough data to make such statements.

The Greeks were polytheistic. The Romans were polytheistic. The Norse were polytheistic. German tribes were polytheistic. The Egyptians were polytheistic.

I know the abrahamic religion has been monotheistic for a long time, but how come it rose to dominance when polytheistic religions were the most common in large and influential cultures?

Monotheistic religions has only been quintessentially western for about 1500 years, polytheism was the order of the day until that.

>were the most common in large and influential cultures?[citation needed]
there are about 2000+ cultural groups you're missing at least, dude. not enough data.

>polytheism was the order of the day until that.[citation needed]
not enough data.

Are you seriously arguing that the Romans and Greeks weren't the largest influence on modern western civilization?

How about you name some large and influential cultures who were monotheistic during that time period, instead?

There is the truth, and then there are lies committed by Satan to do us harm. For some societies, deception required a mix of truth. Ancient civilizations who witnessed nephilim and false miracles didn't require much convincing. Islam and catholicism in particular are bastardisations of the truth designed to harm humanity and the reputation of Christianity

>Are you seriously arguing that the Romans and Greeks weren't the largest influence on modern western civilization?
no, I wasn't, but I will if you want. sumeria was the largest influence on western civilization.

>How about you name some large and influential cultures who were monotheistic during that time period, instead?
philosophical outlook isn't a dichotomy between monotheism and polytheism, retard, nor do I see the relevance of things being "large" or "influential"(a relative, subjective term) to anything. there is not enough data for the claims you are making, and I'm not going to make claims under the same premise because I'm not retarded.

So what do you believe then? That cultures who were monotheistic during that era were more influential, that the polytheistic ones were more influential, or that they were equally influential?

Is it wrong to say that polytheistic religions were more popular during that time in influential cultures?

I'm asking a simple question, western civilization didn't use to be monotheistic, and now we are, why?

>philosophical outlook isn't a dichotomy between monotheism and polytheism

You either believe in no God, one God or more than one God. The thread isn't about philosophy in general; it's about the very distinct DICHOTOMY of Abrahamic religions and polytheism in nearly the entire world... retard

>sumeria was the largest influence on western civilization.
...and polytheistic as fuck.

Nearly every power in the entire region was polytheistic (save for a short failed experiment in Egypt). Hell, the Jews were polytheistic until one Canaanite god's cult won out. The only other monotheists were mostly non contenders (even if you count zoroastrianism, which technically isn't monotheistic). Not enough data my ass.

As far of the state of the world is concerned, particularly when it comes to the "problem of evil", a multitude of competing gods makes a lot more sense.

...But it's also a lot less convenient, and leads to a lot of divisions, both of opinion, philosophy, and raw personality. Particularly when your polytheistic religion has a whole lotta deities at around the same tier, rather than a smooth and unique hierarchy for each. (Which, to a degree, helped Hinduism hold out, I suppose.)

In the end, a single god just makes it much simpler to unite a people (even if you do screwy things like setup a trinity). A united people are ultimately more culturally powerful than a divided people, thus they win by default.

dude if you read some books on the subject you might find that your skepticism is too much since we do have data on peoples religions back then and you can dichotomised monotheism and polytheism if you use the definition abrahamic (most popular religious group in the world) and non-abrahamic. now instead of being a cunt, ill try to give an answer.

christianity offers alot more than other religions. compared to roman norms, it was very good to women (including wealthy roman ones) and the poor and obviously offered a loving god and the after life which was largely absent in hellenic and roman religion.

It was then allowed to spread around europe because the romans and their religion was quite tolerant of other religions and infact, romans had a penchant for adopting other peoples gods. furthermore christianity actively tries to convert people whereas other religions dont give a shit so in a way. When this turns to state religion, it probably meant that christianity became very intolerant of other religions. Its access to rome let it dominate post-roman europe and obviously the colonial world.

islams quite similar to christianity id say.

Best religions are those whose canon is compatible to state and/or government duties

Pagan religions are useless to create organized, functional societies

Stronger meme. Also Chrsitianity was made to measure for conquering the roman empire. They included about every myth that was popular at the time into the early christian canon, kinda like scientology today.

Because monotheism is complete victory of one cult against all other ones.

>They included about every myth that was popular at the time into the early christian canon
You know Zeitgeist has been debunked multiple times, right?

Are you kidding me, the Christian canon has been rewritten several times just to fit better to the times.
>muh eternal word of god

It has an extremely simple message, and it is open to everyone, including slaves and women.

>Christian cannon
>dreadnought of Jesus

Dualism is where it's at desu.

>western civilization is abrahamic religion paired with agriculture.
>believing this when the entire idea of the West was invented by the Romans and Greeks, and Judaism itself is actually profoundly influenced by polytheistic ideas and themes from Egypt, Mesopotamia, Babylon and Persia
>to top it all off, agriculture itself was also invented by pagans from Mesopotamia

And once again, christcucks show just how unthankful they are for all the hard work those 'horrible' pagans did for them

true, thats why we should all read kierkegaard.

youtube.com/watch?v=wS1jpgiKJUU

Its indeed interesting how utterly polytheists got btfo through history even if they used to be the norm everywhere.

What makes polytheist theology so weak?

>calls polytheism weak
>when Abrahamic religion can be nullified by a British biologist, a drunken journalist, Ben Stiller, a fat wizard and their substandard philosophical musings

>What makes polytheist theology so weak?
They are tolerant, even of intolerant people, like monotheists.

to mirror the centralization of power when these polytheistic systems had collapsed/ were collapsing

but the other user doesnt want to hear that. who says this must nessecarily be the case? Who says they collapsed even?

It's an interesting assumption that the explanation must be superior theology.

Christianity became the main religion in Europe because of Constantine and Islam spread mainly by conquest.

>Hurr we can dismantle it soo fast
Doesnt change the fact that abrahamics are strong today and occupie most of the globe.
Besides that, this is about faith and abstract concepts which are not entirely based on logic.
Your de-spooking brigade would surely try to wreck some guy who beliefs there is an invisible spirit who plays a part in keeping the universe together with others of his kind occupying an idol he made for it and gets pleased by a monthly goat sacrifiece and occasional offerings of dough and milk..

lol
Romans fucking up other relgions during wartime was common, the chinese expulsion of foreign cults and what the shintojaps did to the korean muists speaks against that.

>Besides that, this is about faith and abstract concepts which are not entirely based on logic.

Wait, you just said a post ago that it had everything to do with the strength of theology. Do you know what the -logy in theology stands for?

C'mon there must be something inheretently charming in it if it can proselytize quickly to this very day.
Elagalabus bringing over persian peniscults made the roman populus pretty butthurt, if they wouldnt have been receptive towars christianity the point were both faiths reached a standoff during 200-500 AD were they struggled a bit more sophisticated due to having sizable populations behind each other would have never been reached.

It all starts by deciding there are invisble forces at work which cannot be proven outrightly,
Theology is then building on that groundassumption castles of differing logic chains which can be more or less attractive to the people who feel as if they need to do something to be in tune with a higher hardly understandable meaning.

but overall rome was very tolerant to religion within its own empire. the asian things are irrelevant to the rise of christianity. once christianity conquered rome, it conquered the world. another religion would not have been able to do the same in a christian rome. hence how many other christian sects and also manichaeism were simply crushed by rome and the christian elites.

>They are tolerant, even of intolerant people, like monotheists.

Tell that to the Hindu, you filthy untouchable.

>Do you know what the -logy in theology stands for?
Study of?

The Untouchables are Hindus. Besides which they are tolerated, they are just considered a lowly caste that has to dig through poo or whatever for a living.

I'd say that polytheistic religions are more tolerant of other faiths, as often the Gods are essentially interchangeable. As such, no true faith survived unchallenged for long and thus it ended up morphing into something completely different. Monotheistic religions are far more dogmatic and thus far more intractable to change. Thus they more or less remain the same entity when they enter into contact with other cultures.

Greeks/Roman were nominally polytheistic, but Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy fits monotheism better ("logos", "form of the good", "prime mover"). By the 300s the Romans were moving towards monotheism with or without Christianity, as seen in the cult of Sol Invictus

i disagree