Just because deities within certain polytheistic religions were rivals, doesn’t imply the advent of monotheism.
Youre right, it doesn’t.
But just because you assume I’ve assumed something doesn’t make it so.
Polytheism having more explanatory power and being inherently more tolerant is somewhat the consensus on the subject, and I have no need to defend that position to someone I’d have to first lecture for several hours.
That the Viking culture was based on the rape and pillage of Christianity, not exactly a progressive perspective…
See sentences like that reveal your inherent ignorance. I put quotations around “viking”, because that’s just how a lot of people view Scandinavian historical culture. And that you don’t know that viking is a profession, not an ethnicity, is one of the reasons I’m not debating anything with you.
Yes, the people who went on raids usually did the things that were common for raids.
That’s like you saying that robbers rob. Wow.
And saying “their culture was based on rape and pillage” is about as true as racist claims about black people stealing more; amazingly ignorant and inherently racist.
on assuming that Viking in Viking culture women were thought of as equals…which is doubtful.
So because you’re ignorant and assume something, that is how it is? I assume you’re capable of using Google, so you chose not to even check. You just asserted that something is “doubtful” when it’s not. No historians doubt that gender equality was more advanced in Norse communities than in Christian/Islamic countries of the time.
You’re not even aware of what Norse society was like, imaging all they did was “raping and pillaging”, but you’re expecting examples from societies which you probably know even less?
Okay.
“Explain the Mongol Empire”
Lol Did I say polytheism makes one an unconditional pacifist?
But just because you assume I’ve assumed something doesn’t make it so.
You literally claimed that RIVAL gods was evidence of proto monotheism…Making a rebuttal of a claim isn’t me making assumptions?
Polytheism having more explanatory power and being inherently more tolerant is somewhat the consensus on the subject, and I have no need to defend that position to someone I’d have to first lecture for several hours.
Lol, nice appeal to authority there? If only there were some way to show that your claims are backed by a larger body of experts or evidence… Some way to display the source of evidence you stake these claims on…
See sentences like that reveal your inherent ignorance. I put quotations around “viking”, because that’s just how a lot of people view Scandinavian historical culture. And that you don’t know that viking is a profession, not an ethnicity, is one of the reasons I’m not debating anything with you.
Lol, I used quotes when I utilized it as a proper noun. Quotations are not needed when saying Viking culture, the same as if you made a statement about factory culture.
My God, you can’t even correctly utilize logical fallacies in your arguments. How about focusing on the actual claim instead of trying to clumsily devolve into pedantic reasoning.
Yes, the people who went on raids usually did the things that were common for raids.
Right … And you think rading other societies is considered progressive or tolerant?
And saying “their culture was based on rape and pillage” is about as true as racist claims about black people stealing more; amazingly ignorant and inherently racist.
You need to work on your reading comprehension… This was a common claim by the same sources that you utilized for your claim about “Viking rape law”. So if you are willing to validate your argument on their testimony about “Viking rape laws” then their claims about Viking “barbarism” must be equally valid.
Also… I thought you said “Vikings” was a job, not an ethnicity?
No historians doubt that gender equality was more advanced in Norse communities than in Christian/Islamic countries of the time.
More advanced does not equate to equals… and the study you sourced from isn’t making any claim based on primary sources. It’s just examining the comparative health of women vs men based on skeletal remains. Not exactly anything that gives us a better view of their societal structure.
Again, part of my primary argument is based on the fact that there is not a lot of actual written information from polytheistic societies, especially in the west.
You’re not even aware of what Norse society was like, imaging all they did was “raping and pillaging”, but you’re expecting examples from societies which you probably know even less?
Lol, that wasn’t a claim I made. It’s a common claim from the source material you based your “Viking rape law argument on”.
Did I say polytheism makes one an unconditional pacifist?
No you claimed that polytheistic societies were more tolerant and progressive.
You also defined tolerant as equating to less violent. My rebuttal about the Mongol empire is made to directly confront your definition of tolerance.
And again, you are extrapolating your assumptions about a specific type of European polytheism onto all polytheistic societies. When the vast majority of which we actually have primary source materials are from outside of western hegemony. Stop trying to white wash all of human culture because you’re obsessed with Scandinavian history.
You literally claimed that RIVAL gods was evidence of proto monotheism…
You have bad reading comprehension. You brought up ancient Mesopotamia as an example. They may have had several gods, but they were essentially monotheistic in the context that it counts. That IS more or less the birthplace of monotheism. All the ills of monotheism, dogma and a strong hierarchy, are clearly present in ancient Mesopotamian religion, so it’s very unlike the polytheism of say Hinduism, Greeks, Romans and the Norse.
“Quotations are not needed when saying Viking culture”
No yeah, definitely, much in the same way as all those extinct big lizards were dinosaurs, right?
It’s Scandinavian culture, not “viking culture”, lol. This is exactly what I mean. I see no reason to even try to have a chat with you, since you’re arrogant while definitely not having earned the right to be, being that ignorant.
can’t even correctly utilize logical fallacies in your arguments
Thanks for another laugh, lol. The irony. chefskiss
This was a common claim by the same sources that you utilized for your claim about “Viking rape law”.
Yeah no, again, even the assumptions you use to think about this are wrong. So utterly, utterly wrong. But seeing as you clearly have the sources for these claims at hand, please, produce them.
Also… I thought you said “Vikings” was a job, not an ethnicity?
I literally said “Norse society”, not “viking society”. It is a profession, but you’re clearly unwilling or unable to understand that, so I used the silly language you insist upon, even after having made myself clear on the proper use of the term. It’s how we just have to accept the fact that “literally” is nowadays used as emphasis.
It’s a common claim from the source material you based your “Viking rape law argument on”.
Did I say polytheism makes one an unconditional pacifist?
No you claimed that polytheistic societies were more tolerant and progressive.
You also defined tolerant as equating to less violent.
See this is why you talking about logical fallacies made me almost choke on laughter. What you’re trying to do there is an incredibly pisspoor strawman. You’re saying that if a thing Y is likely to make thing X less attribute A, then thing X can not have attribute A at all.
Which is, again, hilarious.
Unlike many empire builders, Genghis Khan embraced the diversity of his newly conquered territories. He passed laws declaring religious freedom for all and even granted tax exemptions to places of worship. This tolerance had a political side—the Khan knew that happy subjects were less likely to rebel—but the Mongols also had an exceptionally liberal attitude towards religion. While Genghis and many others subscribed to a shamanistic belief system that revered the spirits of the sky, winds and mountains, the Steppe peoples were a diverse bunch that included Nestorian Christians, Buddhists, Muslims and other animistic traditions.
The Christians went over to the “Holy Land” to literally rape and pillage, because they considered those people there to have the wrong beliefs. Did the Mongol empire kill a lot of people? Yeah, they did. But had he been a dogmatic Christian monotheist, he’d have killed even more.
The only reason Christians got a foothold in Greece, Rome, Norway and Asia was that those societies were tolerant of the new god, not realising that the believers of that new god would eventually hunt and kill them for believing wrong.
“specific type of European polytheism”
Nah, it’s pretty global, which you’d know if you had any education on the subject, but you don’t.
They may have had several gods, but they were essentially monotheistic in the context that it counts.
Semantics.
That IS more or less the birthplace of monotheism. All the ills of monotheism, dogma and a strong hierarchy, are clearly present in ancient Mesopotamian religion
You do understand how long the ancient history of Mesopotamia is? Monotheism was only prevalent towards the later aspect of ancient history. You are ignoring thousands of years of history to force this concept to bend to your argument.
All the ills of monotheism, dogma and a strong hierarchy, are clearly present in ancient Mesopotamian religion, so it’s very unlike the polytheism of say Hinduism, Greeks, Romans and the Norse.
Lol, you don’t think the Greek, Hindu, or Romans were hierarchical, or engaged in dogmatic beliefs?
No yeah, definitely, much in the same way as all those extinct big lizards were dinosaurs, right?
Lol, wtf are you talking about? You were the person who brought them up to begin with, if you don’t like the nomenclature of “Viking” then you shouldn’t have utilized it in the first place.
However, unless you believe that Scandinavian people of this era and profession possess no culture, then utilizing Viking culture without quotations is grammatically correct.
It’s Scandinavian culture, not “viking culture”, lol. This is exactly what I mean.
Not when we’re are talking about a period of time before the concept of Scandinavians… Priest recording history in the 2nd century aren’t going to have much to say about Scandinavian culture you dolt.
Yeah no, again, even the assumptions you use to think about this are wrong. So utterly, utterly wrong. But seeing as you clearly have the sources for these claims at hand, please, produce them.
Lol, you were the one who brought up “Viking rape laws”, now I have to source your claims? Who the hell do you think the primary source is if not priest?
literally said “Norse society”, not "viking society
Lol, no you called me racist for saying the primary sources believed Viking culture to be based on raping and enslaving Christians. Implying an internal contradiction with your prior claim.
You’re saying that if a thing Y is likely to make thing X less attribute A, then thing X can not have attribute A at all.
Lol, no. See my argument is rebutting your claim. Your claim was that polytheistic societies were more tolerant and progressive than mono theistic societies. I just gave examples that refute your claims.
You were the one who defined both tolerance and progressive, my examples about the Mongols was to explain that those terms were subjective. I can’t control the fact that you incorrectly interpreted my argument to apply to the entirety of your argument.
but the Mongols also had an exceptionally liberal attitude towards religion.
You’re just repeating what I said…? The point was that you claimed polytheistic people were both more progressive and more tolerant. I said those are too subjective of terms to blanket entirely different cultures with. You negated that and claimed that tolerance equates to non violence. I brought up Mongols specifically because they were liberal to religious beliefs but very violent.
The Christians went over to the “Holy Land” to literally rape and pillage, because they considered those people there to have the wrong beliefs.
And the Mongols did not? The Mongols believed that the Khan had celestially Devine right to rule the entirety of humanity.
Even claiming that the crusades were strictly about religion is kinda ridiculous even if you don’t agree with historic materialism. There is plenty of evidence to suggest the majority of campaigns to the holy land were more about economics than theology.
Did the Mongol empire kill a lot of people? Yeah, they did. But had he been a dogmatic Christian monotheist, he’d have killed even more.
I’m guessing you’ve never read much history outside of European history? They would wipe out entire cities and then send scouting parties back days later to kill anyone who hid or came to find their families. They literally couldn’t kill anymore people without slowing down the campaign. The population of Baghdad didn’t return it’s height during this period for nearly a thousand years. You are talking out of your ass.
The only reason Christians got a foothold in Greece, Rome, Norway and Asia was that those societies were tolerant of the new god, not realising that the believers of that new god would eventually hunt and kill them for believing wrong.
Again, you are being extremely reductive. Up until the 2-3rd century Christianity would be hard to define as strictly monotheistic. One of the first major internal contradictions that occured in the church were arguments about the Trinity. Prior to that even popes rarely found real importance in monotheism, as Manichaeism a dualist religion was very popular at the time, and often interchangeable with Christianity. Your statement presumes that over a period of 300 years the church insidiously carried out a conspiracy to slowly infiltrate and turn polytheistic societies. This is just conspiratorial thinking, and requires you to ignore hundreds of years of written history and context, you are making conclusions and working backwards.
Nah, it’s pretty global, which you’d know if you had any education on the subject, but you don’t.
Ahh, yes because you’ve done such a good job showing that you are an expert in the field…
Would you like to give me another historical interpretation of Scandinavian history that indicates you are a worldly scholar of history? You know what, I think I’m okay without hearing another reductive and eurocentric hot take.
No it isn’t. It’s history. And I’m tired of arguing your quackery which makes no sense, and which you have no sources for.
Everything you write reveals your ignorance.
Lol, you don’t think the Greek, Hindu, or Romans were hierarchical, or engaged in dogmatic beliefs?
I’ve actually studied this. I don’t have opinions on it, I have knowledge.
Read up, little contrarian.
And use fucking sources.
Lol, wtf are you talking about? You were the person who brought them up to begin with, if you don’t like the nomenclature of “Viking” then you shouldn’t have utilized it in the first place.
Vikings existed. They were a small part of Norse society. You can’t even understand the distinction.
I’m not even gonna bother reading the rest of your uneducated guesses which contradict the consensus on these things
Oh my eye happened on one, too lol to skip:
Your statement presumes that over a period of 300 years the church insidiously carried out a conspiracy to slowly infiltrate and turn polytheistic societies
It wasn’t a conspiracy. It was open policy? Have you ever had a single history lesson? :D It wasn’t hundreds of years, it’s been several thousand (in different forms)
Through a variety of methods, Christian missionaries acted as the “religious arms” of the imperialist powers of Europe
Christian missionaries were initially portrayed as “visible saints, exemplars of ideal piety in a sea of persistent savagery”. However, by the time the colonial era drew to a close in the later half of the 20th century, missionaries were viewed as “ideological shock troops for colonial invasion whose zealotry blinded them”, colonialism’s “agent, scribe and moral alibi”.
Why are you so angry that monotheism is inherently violent, unlike polytheism? Is it because you’re still formally monotheistic, but know you don’t believe in it, but don’t have the balls to actually admit you’re an atheist?
The things I’ve talked about aren’t my opinions, or even some novel or fringe ideas.
They’ve been around for centuries.
David Hume said that unlike monotheism, polytheism is pluralistic in nature, unbound by doctrine, and therefore far more tolerant than monotheism, which tends to force people to believe in one faith.(David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and the Natural History of Religion)
No, it really isn’t. You are reducing thousands of years of history to “basically monotheism” because it suits your argument. You are literally trying to label one of the oldest polytheistic religions in the world as a monotheistic despite the fact that they only interacted with each other for a relatively insignificant amount of time.
And I’m tired of arguing your quackery which makes no sense, and which you have no sources for.
Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You are constantly forgetting that you were the one who made the original affirmation.
My only claim is that you have no idea what you’re talking about.
actually studied this. I don’t have opinions on it, I have knowledge.
Lol, well actually, I invented history, and have been studying it before written time! You see how anecdotal evidence means next to nothing?
And use fucking sources.
Again, I was the first person to ask about sources? The burden of proof is laid upon the person who made the claim, not the rebuttal.
Vikings existed. They were a small part of Norse society. You can’t even understand the distinction.
When did I say they didn’t?
wasn’t a conspiracy. It was open policy? Have you ever had a single history lesson? :D It wasn’t hundreds of years, it’s been several thousand (in different forms)
Lol, we were talking about the beginning of the Christian church, specifically before the policy was made prior to the council of nicaea.
Why are you so angry that monotheism is inherently violent, unlike polytheism?
Lol, I’m not upset. I’m just explaining how you have no grounds to make that claim. You haven’t given any body of evidence that established your narrative, nor offered any evidence that prohibits alternative explanations if your narrative was proved in the first place.
Is it because you’re still formally monotheistic, but know you don’t believe in it, but don’t have the balls to actually admit you’re an atheist?
Lol, what? Your abilities to confidently jump to wildly inaccurate conclusions is pretty amazing. I don’t particularly care for any religious thoughts unless its about how it relates to culture or history.
I like history, I don’t like people making silly unprovable claims.
David Hume said that unlike monotheism, polytheism is pluralistic in nature, unbound by doctrine, and therefore far more tolerant than monotheism, which tends to force people to believe in one faith.(David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and the Natural History of Religion)
Lol, the philosopher from the enlightenment period? You know that is not actually an academically appropriate source for history, right?
There’s a difference between philosophy and actual history my dude.
And a couple of the books you listed look pretty interesting, but just based on the summaries. I highly doubt they actually attempt to make the same claims as you.
There’s no point in arguing someone like you who has zero understanding and is not ready to educate himself on the subject.
Just because you refuse the evidence in favour of opinions you pull out of your arse doesn’t make the evidence less credible.
There’s tons of books on this, and the mechanisms the theories suppose are very clearly written out in excerpts of those books, since you’re clearly nor a person with the ability to read an entire book.
You are literally trying to label one of the oldest polytheistic religions in the world
First off, “oldest”? You truly, truly make me laugh. Like heartily.
The reasons for why monotheism sucks began in early henotheism, which is a word I bet my left ball you don’t even know the meaning off.
Your temper tantrum won’t change the consensus on the matter, lil guy.
Was Atenisn mono- or polytheistic?
(Rhetorical question, I honestly don’t care about anything you say. Imagine how frustrating it’d be for you to try to discuss the intricacies of your favourite movie/game with some seven year old who’s barely seen proper movies or played games, and definitely doesn’t have a good grasp of them. That’s roughly what this conversation is like to me.)
There’s no point in arguing someone like you who has zero understanding and is not ready to educate himself on the subject.
Ditto?
refuse the evidence in favour of opinions
You haven’t given me any evidence that supports your argument. You’re just rambling about philosophy.
There’s tons of books on this, and the mechanisms the theories suppose are very clearly written out in excerpts of those books, since you’re clearly nor a person with the ability to read an entire book.
Anecdotal…
First off, “oldest”?
Learn to read…“one of the oldest”
Way to avoid the topic though.
reasons for why monotheism sucks began in early henotheism, which is a word I bet my left ball you don’t even know the meaning off
Lol, that excited to become eunuch? Henotheism probably isn’t going to be an unfamiliar concept if I’ve already mentioned dualism…
won’t change the consensus on the matter, lil guy.
Lol, I’m just correctting you. You’re the one whos relinquishing themselves with ad hominem. Also, ya haven’t established there’s a consensus, you’re just saying trust me bro.
Atenisn mono- or polytheistic?
Neither… You do know that history isn’t some walled garden that only Scandinavian have access too, right?
Just because I don’t partake in your pet philosophical theory doesn’t’t mean I can’t enjoy reading history.
I don’t understand the mental gymnastics needed to say “you haven’t provided any evidence” when I’ve told you the arguments, who made them, why and where you can read more about them.
You’re pretending as if you don’t know how to use a search engine. Or open links, for that matter.
We have noted in a previous blog that polytheism distinguished between justice and cult while monotheism merged them and projected justice itself as the true cult. Assmann claims – a point that is not fully clear to me – that monotheism marked a separation between religion and state while they remained indistinct under polytheism. In the Egyptian case, the Pharaoh acted as god’s deputy on earth. Assuming a distinction between heaven and earth, the Pharaoh maintained order on earth, on behalf of the gods in heaven. The state thus assumes religious authority and its power becomes absolute. Monotheism challenged and overthrew precisely this absolutism by introducing a separation between religion and state:
Religion is now constituted as a sphere with its own normativity, which might even override the political normativity of the state.
Criticism of monotheism has occurred throughout history. Critics have described monotheism as a cause of ignorance, oppression, and violence.
The intolerance of narrow monotheism is written in letters of blood across the history of man from the time when first the tribes of Israel burst into the land of Canaan. The worshippers of the one jealous God are egged on to aggressive wars against people of alien [beliefs and cultures]. They invoke divine sanction for the cruelties inflicted on the conquered. The spirit of old Israel is inherited by Christianity and Islam, and it might not be unreasonable to suggest that it would have been better for Western civilization if Greece had moulded it on this question rather than Palestine.
You’re just regurgitating things you literally pull out of your arse. Have you ever taken a single course of theology, or studied it independently? I can bet you haven’t. And you’re not willing to look at the materials I giving. So you’re asserting something, without an explanation, without evidence, and the rhetoric you try to use is ridiculous as fuck: “Oh polytheism is more tolerant than monotheism? Well explain the mongol empire.”
That’s honestly the “best” strawman I’ve seen this year. It’s ludicrous, and the cherry on top is that you larp someone who understands how rhetoric works. :D
Thanks for the entertainment, but please realise that you’re just doing this because you want a debate, not because you know anything about either philosophy or religion.
Youre right, it doesn’t.
But just because you assume I’ve assumed something doesn’t make it so.
Polytheism having more explanatory power and being inherently more tolerant is somewhat the consensus on the subject, and I have no need to defend that position to someone I’d have to first lecture for several hours.
See sentences like that reveal your inherent ignorance. I put quotations around “viking”, because that’s just how a lot of people view Scandinavian historical culture. And that you don’t know that viking is a profession, not an ethnicity, is one of the reasons I’m not debating anything with you.
Yes, the people who went on raids usually did the things that were common for raids.
That’s like you saying that robbers rob. Wow.
And saying “their culture was based on rape and pillage” is about as true as racist claims about black people stealing more; amazingly ignorant and inherently racist.
So because you’re ignorant and assume something, that is how it is? I assume you’re capable of using Google, so you chose not to even check. You just asserted that something is “doubtful” when it’s not. No historians doubt that gender equality was more advanced in Norse communities than in Christian/Islamic countries of the time.
https://phys.org/news/2019-10-gender-equality-dates-vikings.html
https://norse-mythology.org/
You’re not even aware of what Norse society was like, imaging all they did was “raping and pillaging”, but you’re expecting examples from societies which you probably know even less?
Okay.
“Explain the Mongol Empire”
Lol Did I say polytheism makes one an unconditional pacifist?
You literally claimed that RIVAL gods was evidence of proto monotheism…Making a rebuttal of a claim isn’t me making assumptions?
Lol, nice appeal to authority there? If only there were some way to show that your claims are backed by a larger body of experts or evidence… Some way to display the source of evidence you stake these claims on…
Lol, I used quotes when I utilized it as a proper noun. Quotations are not needed when saying Viking culture, the same as if you made a statement about factory culture.
My God, you can’t even correctly utilize logical fallacies in your arguments. How about focusing on the actual claim instead of trying to clumsily devolve into pedantic reasoning.
Right … And you think rading other societies is considered progressive or tolerant?
You need to work on your reading comprehension… This was a common claim by the same sources that you utilized for your claim about “Viking rape law”. So if you are willing to validate your argument on their testimony about “Viking rape laws” then their claims about Viking “barbarism” must be equally valid.
Also… I thought you said “Vikings” was a job, not an ethnicity?
More advanced does not equate to equals… and the study you sourced from isn’t making any claim based on primary sources. It’s just examining the comparative health of women vs men based on skeletal remains. Not exactly anything that gives us a better view of their societal structure.
Again, part of my primary argument is based on the fact that there is not a lot of actual written information from polytheistic societies, especially in the west.
Lol, that wasn’t a claim I made. It’s a common claim from the source material you based your “Viking rape law argument on”.
No you claimed that polytheistic societies were more tolerant and progressive.
You also defined tolerant as equating to less violent. My rebuttal about the Mongol empire is made to directly confront your definition of tolerance.
And again, you are extrapolating your assumptions about a specific type of European polytheism onto all polytheistic societies. When the vast majority of which we actually have primary source materials are from outside of western hegemony. Stop trying to white wash all of human culture because you’re obsessed with Scandinavian history.
You have bad reading comprehension. You brought up ancient Mesopotamia as an example. They may have had several gods, but they were essentially monotheistic in the context that it counts. That IS more or less the birthplace of monotheism. All the ills of monotheism, dogma and a strong hierarchy, are clearly present in ancient Mesopotamian religion, so it’s very unlike the polytheism of say Hinduism, Greeks, Romans and the Norse.
“Quotations are not needed when saying Viking culture”
No yeah, definitely, much in the same way as all those extinct big lizards were dinosaurs, right?
It’s Scandinavian culture, not “viking culture”, lol. This is exactly what I mean. I see no reason to even try to have a chat with you, since you’re arrogant while definitely not having earned the right to be, being that ignorant.
Thanks for another laugh, lol. The irony. chefskiss
Yeah no, again, even the assumptions you use to think about this are wrong. So utterly, utterly wrong. But seeing as you clearly have the sources for these claims at hand, please, produce them.
I literally said “Norse society”, not “viking society”. It is a profession, but you’re clearly unwilling or unable to understand that, so I used the silly language you insist upon, even after having made myself clear on the proper use of the term. It’s how we just have to accept the fact that “literally” is nowadays used as emphasis.
See this is why you talking about logical fallacies made me almost choke on laughter. What you’re trying to do there is an incredibly pisspoor strawman. You’re saying that if a thing Y is likely to make thing X less attribute A, then thing X can not have attribute A at all. Which is, again, hilarious.
The Christians went over to the “Holy Land” to literally rape and pillage, because they considered those people there to have the wrong beliefs. Did the Mongol empire kill a lot of people? Yeah, they did. But had he been a dogmatic Christian monotheist, he’d have killed even more.
The only reason Christians got a foothold in Greece, Rome, Norway and Asia was that those societies were tolerant of the new god, not realising that the believers of that new god would eventually hunt and kill them for believing wrong.
“specific type of European polytheism”
Nah, it’s pretty global, which you’d know if you had any education on the subject, but you don’t.
Semantics.
You do understand how long the ancient history of Mesopotamia is? Monotheism was only prevalent towards the later aspect of ancient history. You are ignoring thousands of years of history to force this concept to bend to your argument.
Lol, you don’t think the Greek, Hindu, or Romans were hierarchical, or engaged in dogmatic beliefs?
Lol, wtf are you talking about? You were the person who brought them up to begin with, if you don’t like the nomenclature of “Viking” then you shouldn’t have utilized it in the first place.
However, unless you believe that Scandinavian people of this era and profession possess no culture, then utilizing Viking culture without quotations is grammatically correct.
Not when we’re are talking about a period of time before the concept of Scandinavians… Priest recording history in the 2nd century aren’t going to have much to say about Scandinavian culture you dolt.
Lol, you were the one who brought up “Viking rape laws”, now I have to source your claims? Who the hell do you think the primary source is if not priest?
Lol, no you called me racist for saying the primary sources believed Viking culture to be based on raping and enslaving Christians. Implying an internal contradiction with your prior claim.
Lol, no. See my argument is rebutting your claim. Your claim was that polytheistic societies were more tolerant and progressive than mono theistic societies. I just gave examples that refute your claims.
You were the one who defined both tolerance and progressive, my examples about the Mongols was to explain that those terms were subjective. I can’t control the fact that you incorrectly interpreted my argument to apply to the entirety of your argument.
You’re just repeating what I said…? The point was that you claimed polytheistic people were both more progressive and more tolerant. I said those are too subjective of terms to blanket entirely different cultures with. You negated that and claimed that tolerance equates to non violence. I brought up Mongols specifically because they were liberal to religious beliefs but very violent.
And the Mongols did not? The Mongols believed that the Khan had celestially Devine right to rule the entirety of humanity.
Even claiming that the crusades were strictly about religion is kinda ridiculous even if you don’t agree with historic materialism. There is plenty of evidence to suggest the majority of campaigns to the holy land were more about economics than theology.
I’m guessing you’ve never read much history outside of European history? They would wipe out entire cities and then send scouting parties back days later to kill anyone who hid or came to find their families. They literally couldn’t kill anymore people without slowing down the campaign. The population of Baghdad didn’t return it’s height during this period for nearly a thousand years. You are talking out of your ass.
Again, you are being extremely reductive. Up until the 2-3rd century Christianity would be hard to define as strictly monotheistic. One of the first major internal contradictions that occured in the church were arguments about the Trinity. Prior to that even popes rarely found real importance in monotheism, as Manichaeism a dualist religion was very popular at the time, and often interchangeable with Christianity. Your statement presumes that over a period of 300 years the church insidiously carried out a conspiracy to slowly infiltrate and turn polytheistic societies. This is just conspiratorial thinking, and requires you to ignore hundreds of years of written history and context, you are making conclusions and working backwards.
Ahh, yes because you’ve done such a good job showing that you are an expert in the field…
Would you like to give me another historical interpretation of Scandinavian history that indicates you are a worldly scholar of history? You know what, I think I’m okay without hearing another reductive and eurocentric hot take.
No it isn’t. It’s history. And I’m tired of arguing your quackery which makes no sense, and which you have no sources for.
Everything you write reveals your ignorance.
I’ve actually studied this. I don’t have opinions on it, I have knowledge.
Read up, little contrarian.
And use fucking sources.
Vikings existed. They were a small part of Norse society. You can’t even understand the distinction.
I’m not even gonna bother reading the rest of your uneducated guesses which contradict the consensus on these things
Oh my eye happened on one, too lol to skip:
It wasn’t a conspiracy. It was open policy? Have you ever had a single history lesson? :D It wasn’t hundreds of years, it’s been several thousand (in different forms)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_colonialism
Why are you so angry that monotheism is inherently violent, unlike polytheism? Is it because you’re still formally monotheistic, but know you don’t believe in it, but don’t have the balls to actually admit you’re an atheist?
The things I’ve talked about aren’t my opinions, or even some novel or fringe ideas.
They’ve been around for centuries.
David Hume said that unlike monotheism, polytheism is pluralistic in nature, unbound by doctrine, and therefore far more tolerant than monotheism, which tends to force people to believe in one faith.(David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and the Natural History of Religion)
Here’s some more reading for you little nephew
https://books.google.fi/books?id=S1tQ5Larst0C&redir_esc=y
https://books.google.fi/books?id=9P4TU-0zEs8C&redir_esc=y
Arvind Sharma, “A Primal Perspective on the Philosophy of Religion”
No, it really isn’t. You are reducing thousands of years of history to “basically monotheism” because it suits your argument. You are literally trying to label one of the oldest polytheistic religions in the world as a monotheistic despite the fact that they only interacted with each other for a relatively insignificant amount of time.
Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You are constantly forgetting that you were the one who made the original affirmation.
My only claim is that you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Lol, well actually, I invented history, and have been studying it before written time! You see how anecdotal evidence means next to nothing?
Again, I was the first person to ask about sources? The burden of proof is laid upon the person who made the claim, not the rebuttal.
When did I say they didn’t?
Lol, we were talking about the beginning of the Christian church, specifically before the policy was made prior to the council of nicaea.
Lol, I’m not upset. I’m just explaining how you have no grounds to make that claim. You haven’t given any body of evidence that established your narrative, nor offered any evidence that prohibits alternative explanations if your narrative was proved in the first place.
Lol, what? Your abilities to confidently jump to wildly inaccurate conclusions is pretty amazing. I don’t particularly care for any religious thoughts unless its about how it relates to culture or history.
I like history, I don’t like people making silly unprovable claims.
Lol, the philosopher from the enlightenment period? You know that is not actually an academically appropriate source for history, right?
There’s a difference between philosophy and actual history my dude.
And a couple of the books you listed look pretty interesting, but just based on the summaries. I highly doubt they actually attempt to make the same claims as you.
There’s no point in arguing someone like you who has zero understanding and is not ready to educate himself on the subject.
Just because you refuse the evidence in favour of opinions you pull out of your arse doesn’t make the evidence less credible.
There’s tons of books on this, and the mechanisms the theories suppose are very clearly written out in excerpts of those books, since you’re clearly nor a person with the ability to read an entire book.
First off, “oldest”? You truly, truly make me laugh. Like heartily.
The reasons for why monotheism sucks began in early henotheism, which is a word I bet my left ball you don’t even know the meaning off.
Your temper tantrum won’t change the consensus on the matter, lil guy.
Was Atenisn mono- or polytheistic?
(Rhetorical question, I honestly don’t care about anything you say. Imagine how frustrating it’d be for you to try to discuss the intricacies of your favourite movie/game with some seven year old who’s barely seen proper movies or played games, and definitely doesn’t have a good grasp of them. That’s roughly what this conversation is like to me.)
Enjoy your ignorance.
Ditto?
You haven’t given me any evidence that supports your argument. You’re just rambling about philosophy.
Anecdotal…
Learn to read…“one of the oldest”
Way to avoid the topic though.
Lol, that excited to become eunuch? Henotheism probably isn’t going to be an unfamiliar concept if I’ve already mentioned dualism…
Lol, I’m just correctting you. You’re the one whos relinquishing themselves with ad hominem. Also, ya haven’t established there’s a consensus, you’re just saying trust me bro.
Neither… You do know that history isn’t some walled garden that only Scandinavian have access too, right?
Just because I don’t partake in your pet philosophical theory doesn’t’t mean I can’t enjoy reading history.
I don’t understand the mental gymnastics needed to say “you haven’t provided any evidence” when I’ve told you the arguments, who made them, why and where you can read more about them.
You’re pretending as if you don’t know how to use a search engine. Or open links, for that matter.
https://books.google.fi/books?id=S1tQ5Larst0C&redir_esc=y
https://books.google.fi/books?id=9P4TU-0zEs8C&redir_esc=y
Arvind Sharma, “A Primal Perspective on the Philosophy of Religion”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_conversion
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization
https://devayasna.wordpress.com/2016/12/23/a-theory-of-polytheism-2/
We have noted in a previous blog that polytheism distinguished between justice and cult while monotheism merged them and projected justice itself as the true cult. Assmann claims – a point that is not fully clear to me – that monotheism marked a separation between religion and state while they remained indistinct under polytheism. In the Egyptian case, the Pharaoh acted as god’s deputy on earth. Assuming a distinction between heaven and earth, the Pharaoh maintained order on earth, on behalf of the gods in heaven. The state thus assumes religious authority and its power becomes absolute. Monotheism challenged and overthrew precisely this absolutism by introducing a separation between religion and state:
Religion is now constituted as a sphere with its own normativity, which might even override the political normativity of the state.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_monotheism
Criticism of monotheism has occurred throughout history. Critics have described monotheism as a cause of ignorance, oppression, and violence.
You’re just regurgitating things you literally pull out of your arse. Have you ever taken a single course of theology, or studied it independently? I can bet you haven’t. And you’re not willing to look at the materials I giving. So you’re asserting something, without an explanation, without evidence, and the rhetoric you try to use is ridiculous as fuck: “Oh polytheism is more tolerant than monotheism? Well explain the mongol empire.”
That’s honestly the “best” strawman I’ve seen this year. It’s ludicrous, and the cherry on top is that you larp someone who understands how rhetoric works. :D
Thanks for the entertainment, but please realise that you’re just doing this because you want a debate, not because you know anything about either philosophy or religion.