Monotheism and the suicide of cultures

[Northern Neil]

Here is a spin - off from the discussion about the Iranian dam. I find it illogical that so many cultures in the world have happily allowed their parent cultures to be submerged once they have adopted monotheistic religions. Moreover, often the evangelisors have been military invaders, sweeping aside the host culture amidst great slaughter and carnage.

 

Why do the Iranians follow a religion which annihilated their own glorious past, and which was brought to them by invading Arabs, a people they still (generally) have little affinity with? Their own original religion, Zoroastrianism, still has a few adherents - surely any Iranian nationalist would want to identify with that religion, rather than that of a people with whom they have been at perpetual war?

 

Why do Central American indians practice Catholicism to the letter, in the knowledge that the Spanish forced this religion on them, destroying their civilisation in the process?

 

European Christians have as their 'antichrist' a figure who was previously their god of Autumn/winter, and nothing to do with evil, seduction etc. Female priests (presumably under the influence of Ceres or some equivelent deity) burnt at the stake as purveyors of evil, and still used as a terrifying image to children, or a negative description of a woman. On this last point, I believe the film 'The Whicker Man' makes an oblique reference.

 

EDIT: Although its climax was dictated by the contemporary view of paganism as a repository of horror - film resource.

 

Some answers please, as this question has niggled me for some time.

Edited April 20, 2007 by Northern Neil

[The Augusta]

Why do the Iranians follow a religion which annihilated their own glorious past, and which was brought to them by invading Arabs, a people they still (generally) have little affinity with? Their own original religion, Zoroastrianism, still has a few adherents - surely any Iranian nationalist would want to identify with that religion, rather than that of a people with whom they have been at perpetual war?

 

The Arab conquest of Iran is a strange one. Many of the Zoroastrians fled to India - to become the Parsees (still there today, of course) - and those who remained, I suppose, gradually became assimilated through the centuries. We need only think back to the rule of the last Shah, very much within our own lifetimes, to see a quite different Iran than that which exists today. My mother always referred to Pahlavi as the Shah of Persia - as his father had been known during her childhood. Although I don't think the name is an issue, as they were always only 'Persians' to westerners - even in ancient times the country was known as Iran to the inhabitants, of which Persia was just a part. But the point is, Pahlavi was reverent of the ancient history of his country. We have a situation here whereby the occupation of that territory since the 7th century AD by Islamic Arabs, suddenly spawned the Islamic Revolution of the 70s when the Ayatollah came to power. It is not unfair to say that all the wealth of Persian literature through mediaeval times to the 19th century flowered under the new Islamic rule. The Rubayyat was written within such a tradition. I doubt that such beautiful work could be produced now, or under the 'theocracy' of the late Ayatollah. Although I am not familiar with today's Iranian culture, so others may know more about this and disagree.

 

There is also the point to be made here that Zoroastrianism itself was monotheistic and eschatological. Therefore was the transition for the ordinary peasant in the fields so great? They were just exchanging Ahura Mazda for Alla and Zoroaster for Mohammed, the Lie for the Infidel. Even Darius the Great had made a public declaration that he would root out the followers of the Lie - although I admit, this may have been partly propaganda to legitimise his seizure of the throne.

 

When we come to monotheistic religions being forced upon polytheistic societies, however, there is a different situation, totally alien to what has gone before, and I can understand that less. Any thoughts?

 

ETA: A quick point re. the Persian/Iranian thing. There is a saying amongst 'Persians' that 'All Persians are Iranian, but not all Iranians are Persian'

Edited April 20, 2007 by The Augusta

[Gaius Octavius]

Some answers here:

 

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html

 

N.N., ask yourself this question: "Why don't I follow the ancient Celtic, Germanic, or Viking religions?" As far as American Indians are concerned, perhaps they no longer wish to adhere to 'blood' religions.

[The Augusta]

Some answers here:

 

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html

 

N.N., ask yourself this question: "Why don't I follow the ancient Celtic, Germanic, or Viking religions?"

 

Ah - how do you know he doesn't, GO?

[Northern Neil]

Some answers here:

 

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html

 

N.N., ask yourself this question: "Why don't I follow the ancient Celtic, Germanic, or Viking religions?"

 

Ah - how do you know he doesn't, GO?

 

WELL.... as it so happens... I probably might if I knew a bit more about them. Problem is, Christianity has wiped out so much of what there is to know about these religions, that there is almost nothing you can attach yourself to spiritually. I dont believe the modern Druids have got it right, as their modern interpretation seems very cosy and idealistic. I also think the neo - classical revival religions in Greece and parts of Italy have it wrong also, as most of the practices and mysteries associated with those cults have been wiped out.

[Gaius Octavius]

Tattle Tale, read N.N's response. Nuff said?

[Ursus]

Problem is, Christianity has wiped out so much of what there is to know about these religions, that there is almost nothing you can attach yourself to spiritually. I dont believe the modern Druids have got it right, as their modern interpretation seems very cosy and idealistic. I also think the neo - classical revival religions in Greece and parts of Italy have it wrong also, as most of the practices and mysteries associated with those cults have been wiped out.

 

Agreed on all fronts. But I think this thread is starting to travel outside the confines of historical discussions. I have taken the liberty of deleting some of the more off-topic posts.

 

NN, in your initial question you asked why cultures "happily" allowed their native religions to be wiped out. I'm not sure how "happy" the process was. The new Imperial Christian government had to proscribe the death penalty to deter Roman pagans from honoring their ancestors inside the privacy of their own homes!

 

But Catholicism at least has an amazing ability to merge with the native religions. In some cases if the local demi-god on the hill was thought to give fertility to the fields, he could be easily replaced by a similar Christian saint if the chapel were built right over the pagan shrine on the same hill. I suppose to a lot of peasants it was all the same, as long the perceived supernatural benefactions were the same.

 

Did you know that even in modern times, there are some Latin American Indians who view the Virgin Mary in terms of some Aztec fertility goddess? Are those Indians Catholic, Pagan - or both?

[civis]

Does anyone know if Islam had any similar mechanisim. I realize Muhammad made a point of destroying idols and things, but I am curios if Islam every ran up against Polythesitic religions of the sort Christianity did, and if so how did they deal with them?

 

I am not sure that you do not have enough to connect with classical relgions at least. I mean you have the epic poems of Homer, you have Virgil, Ovid. I mean pretty much everything out there by Greeks and Romans has a little mythology associated with it. You wouldnt even know that modern pagans were getting it wrong unless you had these, what amount to, religious texts to look at.

[AEGYPTUS]

As regards the title of the topic, do u not think it rather harsh "Monotheism and the suicide of cultures". Yes it did destroy other cultures but did if I am not mistaken they preserve many important ideas that the Roman had be it the Arab (Muslims who preserved Roman ingenuity when it came to things such as Medicine and architecture), also the Christian Church preserving Latin did they not? So I think it would be unfair to say that Monotheism is totally at fault re causing the suicide of local cultures such as those in Iran and the orient prior to the Arab invasion. Besides Monotheism was only part of the Arab identity. Naturally Arab customs would have usurpt local ones they were the ruling class so some loss of local culture and identity is to be expected. On the other hand is that what all invaders try to do to their new subjects regardless whether they are Monotheistic or polytheistic creeds which the particular people involved follow? They try to suppress local culture to prevent a rise in a nationalistic feeling which could potentially cause revolts!!! Just wanted to voice my opinion for what its worth.

Edited April 25, 2007 by AEGYPTUS

[Northern Neil]

Perhaps in some ways it was a pretty strong worded topic title. In Persia and in the classical world, the respective monotheistic religions did preserve much of what went before. However, in Northern Europe including Britain, the religion which was displaced was so successfully propagandised (sp?) against that it is perceived to this day as satanism or witchcraft, and evil in nature. (given that Satan is a construct of the Monotheistic world, I do not regard Satanists as being in any way part of the Pagan religion, even though they themselves may latch on to it. In my view, a Satanist is simply a renegade Christian).

 

In Ireland, the most comprehensively Celtic country in the modern world, the Catholicism of the Romans totally has supplanted the original Celtic religion. The thing that makes Ireland interesting, however, is that the conversion was not brought about by invaders - it seemed to be accepted willingly even though only introduced by a handful of evangelists. Either the Irish people genuinely found this religion attractive or the Irish kings considered it politic to convert, as it (belatedly) admitted them, in a partial sense, to the Roman world. I think the second explanation is most likely, as Christianity even in the 5th century was rapidly assuming its repressive, mediaeval guise.

[AEGYPTUS]

[quote name='Northern Neil' date='Apr 27 2007, 08:34 AM' post='62876'

 

In Ireland, the most comprehensively Celtic country in the modern world, the Catholicism of the Romans totally has supplanted the original Celtic religion. The thing that makes Ireland interesting, however, is that the conversion was not brought about by invaders - it seemed to be accepted willingly even though only introduced by a handful of evangelists. Either the Irish people genuinely found this religion attractive or the Irish kings considered it politic to convert, as it (belatedly) admitted them, in a partial sense, to the Roman world. I think the second explanation is most likely, as Christianity even in the 5th century was rapidly assuming its repressive, mediaeval guise.

 

 

Actually as regards Irish Christianity ( which are obviously of the Catholic Creed today!), However when they were first converted they developed their own distinct version of Christianity referred to as (Celtic Christianity) founded in 5th century, it lacked structure as main stream Catholic and Orthodox Churches having not yet incorporated the ideas of diocese and parishes these ideals were brought to the country later by invaders. Then it started to be identified more with Catholic Church. Celtic Christianity incorporated lots of Pagan myths into the lives of Irish Saints such as St. Briget or St. Finbarr, the acts they are remembered for were in fact carried out by Pagan gods or goddesses in accordance with Ancient Myths! So once again it could be argued in a way that the Ancient Pagan/Celtic stories of Irelands past were in fact preserved by Christians. Just because a different person carries out act does not mean the moral/idea of the story is lost. Christianity did a lot for Ireland as well the rise of the ascetic movement. These communities that developed throughout Ireland became centres of learning and crafts. Even if it did oppress an older culture it did replace it with something that in my view was not half bad. Some of the most beautiful Irish artefacts were made during this period!! in Monasteries.

Edited April 27, 2007 by AEGYPTUS