NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm assuming most people here know what polytheism is, so lets get on with the scenario.

Let's say the usual monotheistic religions never rose to prominence. Jesus fell down a well, or maybe became a banker. Prophet Mohammad didn't escape before his neighbors did him in. Buddha decided that being prince was best. Confucius got that government job so he didn't spend his life whining about how unfair it was.

Whatever. The how's don't matter. What happens in this scenario is that none of the major monotheistic religions rose to prominence, leaving behind all the old polytheistic religions.

Would it have changed anything of history had it been the promiscuous Zeus (the dude had hundreds of progeny apparently) and his dysfunctional pantheon, the Jade Emperor, his court, Amaterasu, Inari and all the other eastern deities instead the Buddhist majority? I'm not too sure about Vishnu and the rest of the Hindi religion, but I think that was a pantheon too.

How much would it have changed the world? Or would it change nothing at all.

Someone may have had some sort of "epiphany" or "dream" in which Zeus killed off all the other gods with one massive thunderbolt/pikachu attack.

And from out of the ashes rose.....Zeus. And since "kneel before Zeus!" didn't sound enough like "kneel before Zod!", his name was changed to God.

I think monotheism would still have rose into prominence. Somebody would have eventually taken it up and become the "prophet"....there is a good payoff in successfully starting monotheism in a polytheistic population. I can't express this idea of mine clearly...hopefully somebody else can put it in better clarity than me.

Muhammed was a smart man....note how he made "I am the final prophet" as a central part of Islam.

I think monotheism would still have rose into prominence. Somebody would have eventually taken it up and become the "prophet"....there is a good payoff in successfully starting monotheism in a polytheistic population. I can't express this idea of mine clearly...hopefully somebody else can put it in better clarity than me.

Muhammed was a smart man....note how he made "I am the final prophet" as a central part of Islam.

Maybe, but I'm giving a hypothetical situation where they didn't. Either because the benefits of staying with a polytheistic religion were more attractive or because the Johny come lately's were treated as kooks.

Maybe, but I'm giving a hypothetical situation where they didn't. Either because the benefits of staying with a polytheistic religion were more attractive or because the Johny come lately's were treated as kooks.

We might have more interesting holidays?

I'm assuming most people here know what polytheism is, so lets get on with the scenario.

Let's say the usual monotheistic religions never rose to prominence. Jesus fell down a well, or maybe became a banker. Prophet Mohammad didn't escape before his neighbors did him in. Buddha decided that being prince was best. Confucius got that government job so he didn't spend his life whining about how unfair it was.

Whatever. The how's don't matter. What happens in this scenario is that none of the major monotheistic religions rose to prominence, leaving behind all the old polytheistic religions.

Would it have changed anything of history had it been the promiscuous Zeus (the dude had hundreds of progeny apparently) and his dysfunctional pantheon, the Jade Emperor, his court, Amaterasu, Inari and all the other eastern deities instead the Buddhist majority? I'm not too sure about Vishnu and the rest of the Hindi religion, but I think that was a pantheon too.

How much would it have changed the world? Or would it change nothing at all.

The Roman religion is the faith of the twelve colonies of Kobol, we'd probably be liek them, only with modern tech instead of FT but with the same faith.

SO SAY WE ALL!!!!

Just thought I'd point out-- monotheism is not neccesarily an instant hit to polytheists. In fact, it often isn't. Just look what happened to (Pharaoh) Akhenaton when he tried to switch the polytheistic Egyptians to a monotheistic worship of Aton. (What happened was he was eventually deposed and polytheism re-established before his body had cooled. As I remember he was (probably) assassinated.)

Buddhism is'nt a Monotheistic religion, rather it is Atheistic, though it could be considered polytheistic since there are multiple Buddha's.


Anyways, I think that things would be different, but also similar.

There would still have been wars based on religion, perhaps more, perhaps less.

Eventually there would probably only be one or two main religions though, like how there are two major religions today that the majority of the population believe in.

Confucius got that government job so he didn’t spend his life whining about how unfair it was.
:D

That’s the best deflation of Confucianism I’ve ever heard.

I'm assuming most people here know what polytheism is, so lets get on with the scenario.

Let's say the usual monotheistic religions never rose to prominence. Jesus fell down a well, or maybe became a banker. Prophet Mohammad didn't escape before his neighbors did him in. Buddha decided that being prince was best. Confucius got that government job so he didn't spend his life whining about how unfair it was.

Whatever. The how's don't matter. What happens in this scenario is that none of the major monotheistic religions rose to prominence, leaving behind all the old polytheistic religions.

Would it have changed anything of history had it been the promiscuous Zeus (the dude had hundreds of progeny apparently) and his dysfunctional pantheon, the Jade Emperor, his court, Amaterasu, Inari and all the other eastern deities instead the Buddhist majority? I'm not too sure about Vishnu and the rest of the Hindi religion, but I think that was a pantheon too.

How much would it have changed the world? Or would it change nothing at all.

It sounds like you're talking about revealed major religions, not exclusively monotheistic religions. But regardless...

I suspect that it would have changed the world in a variety of superficial ways. There would be different mainstream approaches to philosophy, those with a lust for violence and power would find other excuses for their actions, and there might be a few more festivals on average.

Buddhism is'nt a Monotheistic religion, rather it cit Atheistic, though it could be considered polytheistic since there are multiple Buddha's.


Hardly. Buddhism still proscribed to multiple levels of reality/heavens/hells which you could ascend/descend into due to that reincarnation and karmic forces. So it's not really atheistic.

As for polytheistic wars, I'm not sure on that. Wouldn't the power be too diffused?

It sounds like you're talking about revealed major religions, not exclusively monotheistic religions. But regardless...

I left Shintoism alone because I'm not too sure where it stands. Buddhism got the hit because of the way it sells itself. Confucianism was fairly restrictive in faith I think. Hinduism, I'm not sure. They had a pantheon sure, but I don't know enough as to whether it was a small primary circle or a larger one they worshiped.

I'm assuming most people here know what polytheism is, so lets get on with the scenario.

Let's say the usual monotheistic religions never rose to prominence. Jesus fell down a well, or maybe became a banker. Prophet Mohammad didn't escape before his neighbors did him in. Buddha decided that being prince was best. Confucius got that government job so he didn't spend his life whining about how unfair it was.

Whatever. The how's don't matter. What happens in this scenario is that none of the major monotheistic religions rose to prominence, leaving behind all the old polytheistic religions.

Would it have changed anything of history had it been the promiscuous Zeus (the dude had hundreds of progeny apparently) and his dysfunctional pantheon, the Jade Emperor, his court, Amaterasu, Inari and all the other eastern deities instead the Buddhist majority? I'm not too sure about Vishnu and the rest of the Hindi religion, but I think that was a pantheon too.

How much would it have changed the world? Or would it change nothing at all.

I guess everyone would be a Wiccan. I sure there would be problems with Druid fundmentalism. Those Druids were serious about their religion.

As for polytheistic wars, I'm not sure on that. Wouldn't the power be too diffused?

I don't really know much about the old polytheistic religions, but I would think that if the people in charge wanted a war, Zeus/Jupiter/Odin could get the lesser gods to go along.

It sounds like you're talking about revealed major religions, not exclusively monotheistic religions. But regardless...

I suspect that it would have changed the world in a variety of superficial ways. There would be different mainstream approaches to philosophy, those with a lust for violence and power would find other excuses for their actions, and there might be a few more festivals on average.

Frankly, I think it would have made many major changes. Huge amounts of history depend upon the monotheistic religions and the actions taken by those who believed in them, including large amounts of academic research, scientific development, and so on and so forth.

So much so that I don't think we could make a solid prediction as of yet, not without a highly advanced supercomputer to calculate all of the possibilities.

It definitely would not be the same though. I can tell you that much. MAJOR CHANGES would have occurred.

I'm assuming most people here know what polytheism is, so lets get on with the scenario.

Let's say the usual monotheistic religions never rose to prominence. Jesus fell down a well, or maybe became a banker. Prophet Mohammad didn't escape before his neighbors did him in. Buddha decided that being prince was best. Confucius got that government job so he didn't spend his life whining about how unfair it was.

Whatever. The how's don't matter. What happens in this scenario is that none of the major monotheistic religions rose to prominence, leaving behind all the old polytheistic religions.

Would it have changed anything of history had it been the promiscuous Zeus (the dude had hundreds of progeny apparently) and his dysfunctional pantheon, the Jade Emperor, his court, Amaterasu, Inari and all the other eastern deities instead the Buddhist majority? I'm not too sure about Vishnu and the rest of the Hindi religion, but I think that was a pantheon too.

How much would it have changed the world? Or would it change nothing at all. A new monotheistic cult would overpower the rest. As interesting as polytheism is, monotheism is stronger in the combat of ideas. Competing polytheist churches generally integrate, but a competing monotheist church must destroy faith in all of the other gods. One side is fighting for integration, the other for destruction. It's like a boxing match where one side is wearing kid gloves, and the other knuckledusters.

Frankly, I think it would have made many major changes. Huge amounts of history depend upon the monotheistic religions and the actions taken by those who believed in them, including large amounts of academic research, scientific development, and so on and so forth.

So you're suggesting that institutionalized education and learning would be less present? More present?

I'd certainly acknowledge the possibility that it would have altered developmental timelines with regard to technology.

So much so that I don't think we could make a solid prediction as of yet, not without a highly advanced supercomputer to calculate all of the possibilities.

And even then...but this thread is obviously speculation, so I'm not inclined to worry about accuracy overmuch.

It definitely would not be the same though. I can tell you that much. MAJOR CHANGES would have occurred.

Major superficial changes, sure. Human nature isn't changed by believing in more than one God, though.

Hardly. Buddhism still proscribed to multiple levels of reality/heavens/hells which you could ascend/descend into due to that reincarnation and karmic forces. So it's not really atheistic.

As for polytheistic wars, I'm not sure on that. Wouldn't the power be too diffused?

An atheistic religion being one in which there is no defined god figure.
Apart from that the various sects of Buddhism have differing ideas, Tibetan Buddhism has descriptive ideas about levels of hell and such, but other sects don't.

Western Buddhism, which I''m not sure if there is a proper term for, is probably one of the most, if not the most Atheistic though, as it tends to only focus on the idea of Enlightenment and goodwill.


As for polytheistic wars, well people have fought over wars for no reason other than other people believed differently, and that's not counting the times that the higher ups in the church told them to, so I don't see why there would'nt have been.

The old Norse religion was'nt exactly against fighting either, so there would have been them going to war, though really more just to plunder and generally be at war more than any real religious reason.

Anyhow, there would always be those few people who get power and don't like people different from them and thusly go to war in the name of their religion.

I'm assuming most people here know what polytheism is, so lets get on with the scenario. Let's say the usual monotheistic religions never rose to prominence. Jesus fell down a well, or maybe became a banker. Prophet Mohammad didn't escape before his neighbors did him in.

A couple of quibbels:

Buddha decided that being prince was best.

Buddhism is certainly not monotheistic. Some schools of Mahayana and Vajrayana may resemble polytheistism, and may arguably be polytheistic, while the older schools are decidedly non-theistic, but none would be monotheistic.

Confucius got that government job so he didn't spend his life whining about how unfair it was.

Confucianism may not even be a religion, depending on your definition and the specific belifes. Note that it is usually tied to the local native religions, as well as Taoism.

Buddhism is'nt a Monotheistic religion, rather it cit Atheistic, though it could be considered polytheistic since there are multiple Buddha's.

Buddhas =/= gods.

Hardly. Buddhism still proscribed to multiple levels of reality/heavens/hells which you could ascend/descend into due to that reincarnation and karmic forces. So it's not really atheistic.

Again, it depends on the school, as well as the particular belifes of a Buddhist, but in no way is Buddhism monotheistic. I will take a moment to point out that the existance of gods is not important to Buddhism.

I left Shintoism alone because I'm not too sure where it stands.

Shinto is definately polytheistic.

Buddhism got the hit because of the way it sells itself.

:confused: I'm not really sure what you mean there.

Confucianism was fairly restrictive in faith I think.

Again, I'm not exactly sure what you mean here. Did you mean that Confucianism restricts what people believe? If so, no. Just look at the wide variety of religions that confucianism is tied too - Taoism, Shinto, and even Buddhism. But if you meant that Confucianism doesn't really say much about religion, beyond "respect the supernatural, and then leave it be", then yes.

Hinduism, I'm not sure. They had a pantheon sure, but I don't know enough as to whether it was a small primary circle or a larger one they worshiped.

Hinduism ranges widely. The best term for it would probably be henotheism - the worship of one god while accepting the existance of others.

As for your real question here, what would the world be like if the major religions never developed, I'd say we'd be pretty miserable.

Buddhism is'nt a Monotheistic religion, rather it is Atheistic, though it could be considered polytheistic since there are multiple Buddha's.

polytheistic or panentheistic since it believes in the supernatural inside and outside of this world - even though not necessarily personified.

So you're suggesting that institutionalized education and learning would be less present? More present?

I'd certainly acknowledge the possibility that it would have altered developmental timelines with regard to technology.


I have no idea, to be honest. All I'm saying is that there would be change...to what or how extensive, I don't know.

And even then...but this thread is obviously speculation, so I'm not inclined to worry about accuracy overmuch.

True.


Major superficial changes, sure. Human nature isn't changed by believing in more than one God, though.

No, it's not. I suppose that depends on what you consider superficial and what you consider to be not superficial. I suspect important things like certain countries, political ideologies, economic status, technological level, and so and so forth to be radically altered in such a world, though. Again, I have no idea which direction it would take. It could be we'd be far better off technologically, or we could be stuck in the Dark Ages still. We might succeed in granting rights to everyone regardless of their status or we might be even worse than we are.

To be frank, even with speculation like this I'm not going to make any real suggestions because I hate speculating without enough information, and I just don't have that information.

I'm assuming most people here know what polytheism is, so lets get on with the scenario.

Let's say the usual monotheistic religions never rose to prominence. Jesus fell down a well, or maybe became a banker. Prophet Mohammad didn't escape before his neighbors did him in. Buddha decided that being prince was best. Confucius got that government job so he didn't spend his life whining about how unfair it was.

Whatever. The how's don't matter. What happens in this scenario is that none of the major monotheistic religions rose to prominence, leaving behind all the old polytheistic religions.

Would it have changed anything of history had it been the promiscuous Zeus (the dude had hundreds of progeny apparently) and his dysfunctional pantheon, the Jade Emperor, his court, Amaterasu, Inari and all the other eastern deities instead the Buddhist majority? I'm not too sure about Vishnu and the rest of the Hindi religion, but I think that was a pantheon too.

How much would it have changed the world? Or would it change nothing at all.

In a polytheistic world no-one could claim that "God" were exclusively on his side, because there would always be gods for the other side, too. That would have certainly led to a different attitude in people, because the competition of faiths that we see in the abrahamic religions would just be pointless.

Jesus fell down a well
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41921000/jpg/_41921042_203princegrab2.jpg
Lassie! No! Don't prove you're not a lass now! Nooooooo

Ah .... i've been working on this water-to-wine shtick anyway ... *ahem*

Religious and political strife would still be around. It would just be more colorful and varied than "Kr1zchanz/j00z/m05l3mz r eb1l" and might involve human sacrifice or some other garish display.

Buddhism is certainly not monotheistic. Some schools of Mahayana and Vajrayana may resemble polytheistism, and may arguably be polytheistic, while the older schools are decidedly non-theistic, but none would be monotheistic.

Well certainly not the way it started off, but when you get right down to it, what with how some quarters are treating karma, it might as well be a monotheistic force. I admit that this is probably a minority though.


Confucianism may not even be a religion, depending on your definition and the specific belifes. Note that it is usually tied to the local native religions, as well as Taoism.

Fair enough. But I threw in Confucius because he tended to whine about not getting his dream job. :p


Again, it depends on the school, as well as the particular belifes of a Buddhist, but in no way is Buddhism monotheistic. I will take a moment to point out that the existance of gods is not important to Buddhism.


It's important so far as the typical rewards/punishments according to karmic reincarnation goes.


:confused: I'm not really sure what you mean there.


Well, maybe it's because of the way you've met its practicer's, but the ones I come across, laymen and monks once you boil down what they've said to the basics, is exactly the same as any Christian evangelist. Maybe less "Believe or burn" but plenty of "You'll burn for that" and "my religion is better. See the squiggy line?"


Again, I'm not exactly sure what you mean here. Did you mean that Confucianism restricts what people believe? If so, no. Just look at the wide variety of religions that confucianism is tied too - Taoism, Shinto, and even Buddhism. But if you meant that Confucianism doesn't really say much about religion, beyond "respect the supernatural, and then leave it be", then yes.


I think it had a whole bunch of specific steps to follow in regards to that religion.


As for your real question here, what would the world be like if the major religions never developed, I'd say we'd be pretty miserable.

Why do you say that? It's not like the other pantheons wouldn't be around. The major monotheistic ones just wouldn't be around.

Personally, I do think that polytheism would have changed history, and not for the better. If you look at most polythestic religions, there is a great deal of superstition and nature worship; furthermore, there is a great deal of power that is held in the hands of the druid/medicine man/witch doctor/&c. - that would have discouraged development - if you notice, most technological development either occurred in the Middle East, or in Protestant Europe (in Catholic Europe, more power was concentrated in the Church and subsequently, it behaved more like a polythestic religion)

No.

c.f. Earth's Holocaust

End.

...If you look at most polythestic religions, there is a great deal of superstition and nature worship...That's what the abrahamic religions claim, but in fact the forms of worship in the polytheistic religions of the Middle East were not too dissimilar to the forms of worship conducted by Jews, Christians, Muslims.

well it existed and it didn't. if there hadn't been cesarian empires and alexandrean ones before them, THAT would certainly have chainged history.

or if monotheists and polythiests could have accepted each other as equally valid. or if ancient protosuperpowers could have been as honestly agnostic as politics 'de-facto' has always been and continues to be.

if people had never bought the lie that romantacizing and rewarding aggressiveness was anything natural. or formalized hierarchies for that matter.

the problem is in the implied mandate of monotheism for hierarchy of course.

so if no form of monotheism had ever been invented (or alternately, if monothiests and polytheists had equally respected each other's validity and each other) yes, many aspects of history and of the present day would be quite different, possibly better.

for one thing, the library at alexandria would never have been burnt (by fanatically monotheistic arsonists at any rate) and thus there would have been no 'middle ages' and nothing to prevent steam and electricity from having been developed a thousand years sooner. development would of course have remained slower then what we've seen this past century, but without a near milinium of interuption, would not have needed the pace of this past century to make up for it.

=^^=
.../\...

well it existed and it didn't. if there hadn't been cesarian empires and alexandrean ones before them, THAT would certainly have chainged history.

or if monotheists and polythiests could have accepted each other as equally valid. or if ancient protosuperpowers could have been as honestly agnostic as politics 'de-facto' has always been and continues to be.

if people had never bought the lie that romantacizing and rewarding aggressiveness was anything natural. or formalized hierarchies for that matter.

the problem is in the implied mandate of monotheism for hierarchy of course.

so if no form of monotheism had ever been invented (or alternately, if monothiests and polytheists had equally respected each other's validity and each other) yes, many aspects of history and of the present day would be quite different, possibly better.

for one thing, the library at alexandria would never have been burnt (by fanatically monotheistic arsonists at any rate) and thus there would have been no 'middle ages' and nothing to prevent steam and electricity from having been developed a thousand years sooner. development would of course have remained slower then what we've seen this past century, but without a near milinium of interuption, would not have needed the pace of this past century to make up for it.

=^^=
.../\...

the library at alexandria was burnt by monotheists??

btw polytheists did accept each other. the intolerance towards "the others" (those without god) is mainly a monotheistic concept.

hinduism is practiced by alot of people..... check india :D


they have many gods :D

the library at alexandria was burnt by monotheists??

btw polytheists did accept each other. the intolerance towards "the others" (those without god) is mainly a monotheistic concept.

that is my understanding. (on the other count as you say as well) yes.

and the middle ages fallowed, not because of what was (materially) lost there, which may not have actually been anything all that important, but because of the implied capacity for terrorism in the hands of those who opposed objective thought, and thus put a thousand year damper on scientific self dicipline.

=^^=
.../\...

that is my understanding. (on the other count as you say as well) yes.The library of Alexandria was burnt in a fire caused by the Roman army during a military operation in the city.

and the middle ages fallowed, not because of what was (materially) lost there, which may not have actually been anything all that important, but because of the implied capacity for terrorism in the hands of those who opposed objective thought, and thus put a thousand year damper on scientific self dicipline.what?

What I like about polytheism is, it makes better stories. No single god is all-powerful. Omnipotence is the ultimate godmode.

Maybe, but I'm giving a hypothetical situation where they didn't. Either because the benefits of staying with a polytheistic religion were more attractive or because the Johny come lately's were treated as kooks.

That doesn't make a lot of sense. It's like saying "what if we piled all the water in the world into a big heap."

Well, it would all fall back down, because that's what water does. If you imagine otherwise you're not imagining that someone did something with the water, you're imagining that water is something else. For monotheism never to rise to prominence history and humanity would have to be so wildly different that the difference that polytheism actually made would be negligible.

The same with polytheism getting replaced. The absence of Jesus or Mohammad wouldn't do it. Polytheism wouldn't change history, because it is history. Islam didn't replace a polytheistic religion. The Persian empire was based on monotheistic Zoroastrianism, which was the basis of a lot of Jewish mythology.

Monotheism just seems to be the way that religion shapes up when empires form. Part of it is that they become more patriarchal, and male psychology likes to break things down into simple pieces. Another is that for governments to maintain their authority they like to make one god the favorite object of worship and then associate themselves with it. Daoism had the Jade Emperor. Buddhism has Buddha. Hinduism had Brahma. If you get civilization, you eventually get monotheism.

hinduism is practiced by alot of people..... check india :D


they have many gods :D

Yes, but they're all supposed to be faces of one god.

A couple of quibbels:

Confucianism may not even be a religion, depending on your definition and the specific belifes. Note that it is usually tied to the local native religions, as well as Taoism.

Buddhas =/= gods.

Again, it depends on the school, as well as the particular belifes of a Buddhist, but in no way is Buddhism monotheistic. I will take a moment to point out that the existance of gods is not important to Buddhism.

As for your real question here, what would the world be like if the major religions never developed, I'd say we'd be pretty miserable.

There is a theological point to be made for what you have to say, but not a social one.

Many of the Eastern forms of Buddhism treat Buddha as a god. Some even say that you get enlightenment by saying his name ten thousand times (a bit like saying that you get into heaven by praying to him instead of living as he taught.) That's why the Chinese emperor was able to claim authority over the Tibetans and the Mongols. He claimed to be an incarnation of the Buddha. Exactly like the pope ties himself to God.

And socially, Confucianism is a religion. Not strictly monotheistic, because it more obviously just builds on other folk religions the way Christianity built on Judaism.

the library at alexandria was burnt by monotheists??

Theodosius I was a Christian I believe, and he did order its destruction.

Well, it would all fall back down, because that's what water does. If you imagine otherwise you're not imagining that someone did something with the water, you're imagining that water is something else. For monotheism never to rise to prominence history and humanity would have to be so wildly different that the difference that polytheism actually made would be negligible.


Not really. All it would require is a number of unfortunate incidents to occur to the originators of monotheism. Monotheism has almost always risen from a single prophet like figure.


Polytheism wouldn't change history, because it is history. Islam didn't replace a polytheistic religion. The Persian empire was based on monotheistic Zoroastrianism, which was the basis of a lot of Jewish mythology.

Polytheism is history only because it got wiped out by monotheism. This is a hypothetical situation wherein the proponents of monotheism either never were or kept their mouths shut. It's not that hard to arrange.

Take a look at Jesus. Imagine if the Roman empire managed to catch him on some infraction and lock him up before he started to preach.

Mohammad? If he had been a day slower in leaving town, his neighbors would have strung him up.


Monotheism just seems to be the way that religion shapes up when empires form.

Bollocks. Rome had a hefty empire well before Jesus was even born. India has never really been monotheistic and have been an empire for even longer. And how do you even explain Japan? Sure, it was feudal, but they had an empire and all. And they had a pantheon. Inari, Amaterasu, and a whole host of others I can't remember the names of.

Genghis Khan? Nobody even knows what religious backing he had, and I doubt it was any of the mainstream monotheistic faiths of the time, yet he had a huge empire.

You don't need monotheism to have an empire.


Daoism had the Jade Emperor.


The Jade Emperor was a primary among many. It's similar to the Greek pantheon. Kwan Yin, the Goddess of Mercy was also fairly heavily worshiped. And let's not forget all that hullaboo they used to have for the dragon kings (sea gods) in the event of drought.

There would be lots of giant statues of parrots around.

Theodosius I was a Christian I believe, and he did order its destruction.The destruction ordered by Theophilus I was the second destruction.

Originally Julius Caesar destroyed the library.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_alexandria#Caesar.27s_conquest_48_BC

I'm assuming most people here know what polytheism is, so lets get on with the scenario.

Let's say the usual monotheistic religions never rose to prominence. Jesus fell down a well, or maybe became a banker. Prophet Mohammad didn't escape before his neighbors did him in. Buddha decided that being prince was best. Confucius got that government job so he didn't spend his life whining about how unfair it was.

Whatever. The how's don't matter. What happens in this scenario is that none of the major monotheistic religions rose to prominence, leaving behind all the old polytheistic religions.

Would it have changed anything of history had it been the promiscuous Zeus (the dude had hundreds of progeny apparently) and his dysfunctional pantheon, the Jade Emperor, his court, Amaterasu, Inari and all the other eastern deities instead the Buddhist majority? I'm not too sure about Vishnu and the rest of the Hindi religion, but I think that was a pantheon too.

How much would it have changed the world? Or would it change nothing at all.

hmm since polytheistic religons are more tolerant of other religons there would a lot differnet

An atheistic religion being one in which there is no defined god figure.
Apart from that the various sects of Buddhism have differing ideas, Tibetan Buddhism has descriptive ideas about levels of hell and such, but other sects don't.

Western Buddhism, which I''m not sure if there is a proper term for, is probably one of the most, if not the most Atheistic though, as it tends to only focus on the idea of Enlightenment and goodwill.
.

buddhism leaves the question of god/s up to the individual cultures. the vast majority of buddhist individuals have gods that they pay some attention to. in that way it IS polytheistic.

confucius is not the god of confucianism. the chinese (before the communist revolution at least) tended to be confucian, taoist and buddhist at the same time and the vast majority had gods that they paid some attention to (as well as tending to their ancestors). as such they should also count as polytheistic.

i dont think that polytheism would have made as much difference as whether or not there is an official state religion. when rome switched over to christianity and enforced its beliefs on the populace, that made a huge difference. if belief had been left up to individuals what to believe, it wouldnt have changed as much even if everyone had gradually shifted to monotheism.

There is a thriving polytheism still, in the pagan community, but much like hinduism, mostly it's a polytheistic monism, in other words, many gods, all being the same. Beyond even that, all THINGS being one thing. It makes sense if you look at the universe from OUTSIDE. Just like people are made up of many cells, organs, tissues, muscles, nerves, etc. when we look we just see a person, not the many parts that make that person. If we could look in this way at our universe it would become clear that we are in fact, one.

aside from that, christianity takes many of it's traditions and holidays from.... PAGANISM... when Rome was trying to stomp it out they realized how much easier it would be to just change the focus for people than the actual religious practices. hense we go from Candlemas to Christmas, and so on.

There is a theological point to be made for what you have to say, but not a social one.

Many of the Eastern forms of Buddhism treat Buddha as a god. Some even say that you get enlightenment by saying his name ten thousand times (a bit like saying that you get into heaven by praying to him instead of living as he taught.) That's why the Chinese emperor was able to claim authority over the Tibetans and the Mongols. He claimed to be an incarnation of the Buddha. Exactly like the pope ties himself to God.

The Pope is believed to be the successor of Peter, having his authority. So I guess you could say that he's the incarnation of Peter.

Incarnation of God? Not so much.

I have no idea, to be honest. All I'm saying is that there would be change...to what or how extensive, I don't know.

Fair enough.

No, it's not. I suppose that depends on what you consider superficial and what you consider to be not superficial. I suspect important things like certain countries, political ideologies, economic status, technological level, and so and so forth to be radically altered in such a world, though. Again, I have no idea which direction it would take. It could be we'd be far better off technologically, or we could be stuck in the Dark Ages still. We might succeed in granting rights to everyone regardless of their status or we might be even worse than we are.

To be frank, even with speculation like this I'm not going to make any real suggestions because I hate speculating without enough information, and I just don't have that information.

Not enough information on the way religions have operated, or on history, or what?

There is a thriving polytheism still, in the pagan community, but much like hinduism, mostly it's a polytheistic monism, in other words, many gods, all being the same. Beyond even that, all THINGS being one thing. It makes sense if you look at the universe from OUTSIDE. Just like people are made up of many cells, organs, tissues, muscles, nerves, etc. when we look we just see a person, not the many parts that make that person. If we could look in this way at our universe it would become clear that we are in fact, one.

aside from that, christianity takes many of it's traditions and holidays from.... PAGANISM... when Rome was trying to stomp it out they realized how much easier it would be to just change the focus for people than the actual religious practices. hense we go from Candlemas to Christmas, and so on.

not only that but many christian saints are former pagan gods re-imagined. as christianity spread people werent forced to give up their gods, just come to a new understanding that they are subordinate to the christian trinity. (and no longer "gods" but "saints")

The spread of polytheistic religions would certainly have altered the borderlines that delineate different nations and peoples, but it is unlikely that human behavior would be substantially different. In a parallel world where polytheistic religions dominate, people would share roughly the same classical heritage as we westerners share here, and that classical heritage is far more important to the formation of our societies than merely modern monotheistic religion.

Yes, but they're all supposed to be faces of one god.

Not exactly.

Vaishnavism - everything is from Vishnu (including matter, energy, souls, gods, demons etc). Other gods have their own existence (dependent on Vishnu's will, of course) so in a way they are "different" and not "faces of one god" but since they are all from one source (Vishnu), you can look at is as "faces of one god"....depends how you look at it though.

Saivism - replace Vishnu with Shiva.

Advaitha - impersonal Godhead is the ultimate reality. We see different gods due to maya but beyond maya there is only one Brahman (not to be confused with Brahma - a deity with personality).

These are the three main stream/philosophies and along with every other stream imaginable form the umbrella of Hinduism.

Btw, Buddha is considered as an avatar of Vishnu by many sects of Vaishnavists - notably the ISKCON / Hare Krishna variety.

The spread of polytheistic religions would certainly have altered the borderlines that delineate different nations and peoples, but it is unlikely that human behavior would be substantially different. In a parallel world where polytheistic religions dominate, people would share roughly the same classical heritage as we westerners share here

How do you figure? It's not like the other areas of the world wouldn't have their own heritage.

I'm assuming most people here know what polytheism is, so lets get on with the scenario.

Let's say the usual monotheistic religions never rose to prominence. Jesus fell down a well, or maybe became a banker. Prophet Mohammad didn't escape before his neighbors did him in. Buddha decided that being prince was best. Confucius got that government job so he didn't spend his life whining about how unfair it was.

Whatever. The how's don't matter. What happens in this scenario is that none of the major monotheistic religions rose to prominence, leaving behind all the old polytheistic religions.

Would it have changed anything of history had it been the promiscuous Zeus (the dude had hundreds of progeny apparently) and his dysfunctional pantheon, the Jade Emperor, his court, Amaterasu, Inari and all the other eastern deities instead the Buddhist majority? I'm not too sure about Vishnu and the rest of the Hindi religion, but I think that was a pantheon too.

How much would it have changed the world? Or would it change nothing at all.

The world would have been more different and familiar, IMHO.

War: Would exist, just as much as it does now. However I doubt religion would be used as an excuse. War existed long before monotheism did, but it generally wasn't conducted in the name of a particular god or pantheon. We'd use other excuses to justify taking people's oil. Maybe people who fold their napkins incorrectly, or something. Polytheistic belief doesn't lend itself to use in that way, but that won't stop people fighting.

Technology: More advanced. Polytheistic religions allow for more religious experimentation since they don't have a canon of belief like the Bible or Qur'an. For example, both Egyptian and Greek religion have multiple creation myths, all co-existing, even though they would appear to contradict. Ergo adding scientific explanations as well wouldn't make much difference. In addition to this most polytheistic religions encourage education and regard it in a positive light. I can't see the Great Library being destroyed by rabid devotees of Thoth or Athena as much as I can any of the monotheistic hordes.

"The Patriarchy"/"The Hierarchy": Would still be here. Look to history and see which polytheistic superpowers embraced peace, emancipation and egalitarianism...

Egypt: No, No and No.
Greece: No, No and No.
Rome: No, No and No.
India: No, No and No.
China: No, No and No.

Sexual life: This would be a lot less screwed up. Few polytheistic religions scorn physical relationships. Few polytheistic religions (none I can think of) advocate celibacy as superior, except perhaps in cases where one is considered to be in some form of relationship with a god or gods (I.e. God's Wife of Amun in Egypt and certain Greek cults, but these are exceptions)

Oh, and we'd have better holidays and festivals, and a generally more colourful and aesthetic world. Puritanism would be mercifully more rare than in our world, I would hope.

maybe not. there have always been blood suckers throughout the ages, gave them something to do in the name of..... they didn't have the distractions of tv's, mobiles, or pc's so they needed to war, be warriors, warring, whatever.
to conquer or be conquered mentality meant that someone was gonna be top dog at whatever cost. whether it was organized religion or something else was the tool. there have been indigenous societies that are horizontal but they have other issues to contend with so there was no utopia. have to give this more thought. quiz people and hope for a reasonable response. religion is a sore spot, there is no middle ground.

War: Would exist, just as much as it does now. However I doubt religion would be used as an excuse. War existed long before monotheism did, but it generally wasn't conducted in the name of a particular god or pantheon. We'd use other excuses to justify taking people's oil. Maybe people who fold their napkins incorrectly, or something. Polytheistic belief doesn't lend itself to use in that way, but that won't stop people fighting.


Most (if not all) polythestic religions had war gods of some description or other. So, although I agree they wouldn't use it as an excuse, they would each claim to be divinely blessed in this endeavour by the respective war god. All solidiers like to have a bit of divine presence on their side... helps morale :D

Buddhism does not enjoy using the word God to describe Buddha. God is usually tie with the creation of the universe, which requires God to exist outside of it's creation and thus goes against the principle of Buddhism. In Buddhism the idea is that the universe starts off as one singularity call Buddha, a thought of chaos emerge in this entity, and everything was formed. This means that everything in the universe was originated from Buddha and every living being can therefore become Buddha. For those who believe in the big bang theory it's something close to that. It's difficult to pinpoint if this is monotheism or not, but it's definitely not polytheism.

Taoism is polytheism as far as I know. Taoism have a whole Chinese emperor system up there with the Heaven Emperor and Heaven Mother, Heaven Generals and Heaven Soldiers, and so on.

As for Confucianism it's the principles of life, not a religion. There was no God or supernatural of any form in Confucianism. Just rules on how people should behave and define what socially and culturally acceptable is.

Most (if not all) polythestic religions had war gods of some description or other. So, although I agree they wouldn't use it as an excuse, they would each claim to be divinely blessed in this endeavour by the respective war god. All solidiers like to have a bit of divine presence on their side... helps morale :D


Definitely! I wouldn't fight if I was not certain that the gods weren't behind me. But I think that's different to waging war using religion as an excuse, rather than as support.

Definitely! I wouldn't fight if I was not certain that the gods weren't behind me. But I think that's different to waging war using religion as an excuse, rather than as support.


Oh, I do agree with that. I suppose I was more trying to illustrate that religion would still be used in war, just not as the 'be all, end all' excuse. Possibly in many ways as it is now in the west. It would be rare for any western leader to start a war on the specific pretext that x nation does not share the same religious beliefs. BUT many do still claim that God blesses said war effort because, for example, it is the moralistic thing to do.

Not really. All it would require is a number of unfortunate incidents to occur to the originators of monotheism. Monotheism has almost always risen from a single prophet like figure.

No it didn't. The individual religions always place a single favored prophet at their head, but there was also a lot of competing people with similar messages. Jesus was a rather unextraordinary street preacher in his life. It wasn't until after he died that the story caught on. But there were a lot of other Jesuses waiting in the wings.

Polytheism is history only because it got wiped out by monotheism. This is a hypothetical situation wherein the proponents of monotheism either never were or kept their mouths shut. It's not that hard to arrange.

Again, you're falling for the mythology. Jesus no more invented universal monotheism than the Wright Brothers invented the airplane or James Watt invented the steam engine. Christianity, the Airplane, and the improved steam engine came about not because of Christ, the Wright Brothers, and James Watt. They came about because the time was ripe for them to arise.

Take a look at Jesus. Imagine if the Roman empire managed to catch him on some infraction and lock him up before he started to preach.

There were lots of other preachers just like him.

Mohammad? If he had been a day slower in leaving town, his neighbors would have strung him up.

And someone else would have said the same thing the next day.

Bollocks. Rome had a hefty empire well before Jesus was even born. India has never really been monotheistic and have been an empire for even longer.

But those gods were becoming increasingly consolidated. The Romans understood Isis, Venus, Aphrodite, and Ishtar to all be the same goddess. Sol Invictus was understood to be a single name for the god who was alternately known as Apollo, Elah-Gabal, Helios, and yes Christ.

And how do you even explain Japan? Sure, it was feudal, but they had an empire and all. And they had a pantheon. Inari, Amaterasu, and a whole host of others I can't remember the names of.

Yes, and the people were shifting en masse to Buddhism.

Genghis Khan? Nobody even knows what religious backing he had, and I doubt it was any of the mainstream monotheistic faiths of the time, yet he had a huge empire.

Yes, but empires shift to monotheism gradually. Genghis Khan built his empire within his own lifetime. And it disintegrated shortly after his death. One could argue that polytheism had left his empire without a focus for authority outside his own charismatic self, and this is one more argument for my point about monotheism developing in empires.

You don't need monotheism to have an empire.

No, you don't. But empires have a way of getting people thinking in terms of singular authorities instead of diffuse relationships.

The Jade Emperor was a primary among many. It's similar to the Greek pantheon. Kwan Yin, the Goddess of Mercy was also fairly heavily worshiped. And let's not forget all that hullaboo they used to have for the dragon kings (sea gods) in the event of drought.

Yes, and through every Dynasty there was a tendency to start consolidating those divinities. While the old ones weren't eliminated, their importance was. Then the old Dynasty would fall apart and religion would go back to chaotic folkways.

The Pope is believed to be the successor of Peter, having his authority. So I guess you could say that he's the incarnation of Peter.

Incarnation of God? Not so much.

The belief of the Church is that the Pope may "channel" God and make statements that bear the authority of God himself. That's more than simply being Peter's latest successor.

Polytheism wouldn't have changed the world. However, the transition from Matriarchal Religions to Patriarchal Religions has changed the world. I.E., the transition from worshiping the Divine Mother to worshiping the Divine Father has changed the world.

It wouldn't have changed anything whatsoever. Today, even though we have monotheist religions, they all worship different interpretations of the same deity, misinterpret different the same parts of religion, with hundreds of small sects and shoot-off religions. It's no different than worshiping different deities.

Oh, I do agree with that. I suppose I was more trying to illustrate that religion would still be used in war, just not as the 'be all, end all' excuse. Possibly in many ways as it is now in the west. It would be rare for any western leader to start a war on the specific pretext that x nation does not share the same religious beliefs. BUT many do still claim that God blesses said war effort because, for example, it is the moralistic thing to do.

I think the way western countries do so today is, with a slight subtlety, using the absolutism of monotheistic belief to wage war. Take The War Against Terror for example. "The Axis of Evil", "Islamist Threat", "Islamic Terrorism" and all that. It's pretty crude "Our Interpretation of One God Versus Your Marginally Different Interpretation of One God" sort of stuff.

I imagine in a polytheistic dominated world most war would be fought on the excuse of cultural/national/racial superiority. "Kill those who threaten the glory of eternal North Tyneside!" or "Hack up the land of the wretched cave dwellers of E16!" Even though hacking up E16 is in itself a virtuous and righteous cause for the right thinking residents of SW19, it would no doubt reassure them to know that the Great God of the Celestial Tennis Court is content when he sees them advance into battle.