Mixing
Why do western monotheistic religions seem to be so full of conflict over dogma?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
This could be a totally false premise. But clearly when Christianity was starting (and even to this day) there are serious conflicts about ideology. You had the Arians, Monophysites, etc. all at each others throats. I noticed that this was similar to the Jewish sects that fought against each other (more than they fought the Romans) in Josephus's The Jewish War. Additionally you can look at Islam and see the various sects (Shiites, Sunnis, etc.) that do not play very well with each other.
In all my time reading history I have never read of such doctrinal conflicts occurring in societies that were polytheistic.
So my question is what made monotheism so prone to inter-religion conflict as opposed to polytheism?
To document what i have researched so far is reading the Jewish War by Josephus, and the Byzantine Empire by Norwich, along with several various web pages. I have not been able to locate anything that talks about intra-religious conflicts among polytheistic religions.
This question was based on a quote from Freud saying,
"It was strict monotheism, the first attempt of its kind, as far as we
know, in the history of the world, and along with the belief in a
single god that religious intolerance was inevitably born, which had
previously been alien to the ancient world."
or this quote from Kirsch, which starts to maybe explain why but never gives a fully satisfying answer ,
"But, fatefully, monotheism turned out to inspire a ferocity and even
a fanaticism that are mostly absent from polytheism. At the heart of
polytheism is an open-minded and easygoing approach to religious
belief and practice, a willingness to entertain the idea that there
are many gods and many ways to worship them. At the heart of
monotheism, by contrast, is the sure conviction that only a single god
exists, a tendency to regard one's own rituals and practices as the
only proper way to worship the one true god. The conflict between
these two fundamental values is what I call the war of God against the
gods-it is a war that has been fought with heart-shaking cruelty over
the last thirty centuries, and it is a war that is still being fought
today."
religion jews byzantine-empire religious-history
asked 2 hours ago
ed.hank
1,929520
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
This could be a totally false premise. But clearly when Christianity was starting (and even to this day) there are serious conflicts about ideology. You had the Arians, Monophysites, etc. all at each others throats. I noticed that this was similar to the Jewish sects that fought against each other (more than they fought the Romans) in Josephus's The Jewish War. Additionally you can look at Islam and see the various sects (Shiites, Sunnis, etc.) that do not play very well with each other.
In all my time reading history I have never read of such doctrinal conflicts occurring in societies that were polytheistic.
So my question is what made monotheism so prone to inter-religion conflict as opposed to polytheism?
To document what i have researched so far is reading the Jewish War by Josephus, and the Byzantine Empire by Norwich, along with several various web pages. I have not been able to locate anything that talks about intra-religious conflicts among polytheistic religions.
This question was based on a quote from Freud saying,
"It was strict monotheism, the first attempt of its kind, as far as we
know, in the history of the world, and along with the belief in a
single god that religious intolerance was inevitably born, which had
previously been alien to the ancient world."
or this quote from Kirsch, which starts to maybe explain why but never gives a fully satisfying answer ,
"But, fatefully, monotheism turned out to inspire a ferocity and even
a fanaticism that are mostly absent from polytheism. At the heart of
polytheism is an open-minded and easygoing approach to religious
belief and practice, a willingness to entertain the idea that there
are many gods and many ways to worship them. At the heart of
monotheism, by contrast, is the sure conviction that only a single god
exists, a tendency to regard one's own rituals and practices as the
only proper way to worship the one true god. The conflict between
these two fundamental values is what I call the war of God against the
gods-it is a war that has been fought with heart-shaking cruelty over
the last thirty centuries, and it is a war that is still being fought
today."
religion jews byzantine-empire religious-history
asked 2 hours ago
ed.hank
1,929520
2
I think there are three answers worth investigating. First, we don't have as many records of polytheistic internecine conflict; I think your assumption that they are less prone to conflict is suspect. We just have more records about monotheists. (also, communications between monotheists occurs at a higher velocity). Second, mono theists means there are less opportunities for heterodoxy. Monotheists must agree on the creed; polytheists can have multiple interpretations. Third, monotheism is being used to unify larger and more complex societies. Easy to manage peasants.
– Mark C. Wallace♦
1 hour ago
2
This question would benefit from documenting prior research.
– Mark C. Wallace♦
1 hour ago
@MarkC.Wallace - I added the research i have down. And yes I agree with your points. 1, agreed there is no real documentation i have been able to find saying that polytheism was free of doctrinal conflict. 2, this would be interesting to expand on. 3, is this necessarily true? it seems like Rome was much more stable and unified before Constatine, after Constatine it seems like dogmatic arguments did as much damage to the empire as it did unify it. And again these are just my thoughts, I definitely could be wrong or missing the point.
– ed.hank
1 hour ago
One thing you might want to consider is the motivation behind the splits. I've seen speculation that, in certain times, the best way to get a separatist movement going was to base it on religion in some way.
– David Thornley
1 hour ago
I suspect that much of the conflict over dogma in 'monotheistic' religions arose from the way those religions originated. For example, Christianity began as a movement which comprised groups that all believed slightly different things, and worshipped in different ways. When they create a single "catholic" Christianity in the 4th century, which of those beliefs was 'correct'? Which was the 'right' way to worship? After all, if you got it wrong, weren't you condemning your followers to Hell?
– sempaiscuba♦
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
This could be a totally false premise. But clearly when Christianity was starting (and even to this day) there are serious conflicts about ideology. You had the Arians, Monophysites, etc. all at each others throats. I noticed that this was similar to the Jewish sects that fought against each other (more than they fought the Romans) in Josephus's The Jewish War. Additionally you can look at Islam and see the various sects (Shiites, Sunnis, etc.) that do not play very well with each other.
In all my time reading history I have never read of such doctrinal conflicts occurring in societies that were polytheistic.
So my question is what made monotheism so prone to inter-religion conflict as opposed to polytheism?
To document what i have researched so far is reading the Jewish War by Josephus, and the Byzantine Empire by Norwich, along with several various web pages. I have not been able to locate anything that talks about intra-religious conflicts among polytheistic religions.
This question was based on a quote from Freud saying,
"It was strict monotheism, the first attempt of its kind, as far as we
know, in the history of the world, and along with the belief in a
single god that religious intolerance was inevitably born, which had
previously been alien to the ancient world."
or this quote from Kirsch, which starts to maybe explain why but never gives a fully satisfying answer ,
"But, fatefully, monotheism turned out to inspire a ferocity and even
a fanaticism that are mostly absent from polytheism. At the heart of
polytheism is an open-minded and easygoing approach to religious
belief and practice, a willingness to entertain the idea that there
are many gods and many ways to worship them. At the heart of
monotheism, by contrast, is the sure conviction that only a single god
exists, a tendency to regard one's own rituals and practices as the
only proper way to worship the one true god. The conflict between
these two fundamental values is what I call the war of God against the
gods-it is a war that has been fought with heart-shaking cruelty over
the last thirty centuries, and it is a war that is still being fought
today."
religion jews byzantine-empire religious-history
asked 2 hours ago
ed.hank
1,929520
This could be a totally false premise. But clearly when Christianity was starting (and even to this day) there are serious conflicts about ideology. You had the Arians, Monophysites, etc. all at each others throats. I noticed that this was similar to the Jewish sects that fought against each other (more than they fought the Romans) in Josephus's The Jewish War. Additionally you can look at Islam and see the various sects (Shiites, Sunnis, etc.) that do not play very well with each other.
In all my time reading history I have never read of such doctrinal conflicts occurring in societies that were polytheistic.
So my question is what made monotheism so prone to inter-religion conflict as opposed to polytheism?
To document what i have researched so far is reading the Jewish War by Josephus, and the Byzantine Empire by Norwich, along with several various web pages. I have not been able to locate anything that talks about intra-religious conflicts among polytheistic religions.
This question was based on a quote from Freud saying,
"It was strict monotheism, the first attempt of its kind, as far as we
know, in the history of the world, and along with the belief in a
single god that religious intolerance was inevitably born, which had
previously been alien to the ancient world."
or this quote from Kirsch, which starts to maybe explain why but never gives a fully satisfying answer ,
"But, fatefully, monotheism turned out to inspire a ferocity and even
a fanaticism that are mostly absent from polytheism. At the heart of
polytheism is an open-minded and easygoing approach to religious
belief and practice, a willingness to entertain the idea that there
are many gods and many ways to worship them. At the heart of
monotheism, by contrast, is the sure conviction that only a single god
exists, a tendency to regard one's own rituals and practices as the
only proper way to worship the one true god. The conflict between
these two fundamental values is what I call the war of God against the
gods-it is a war that has been fought with heart-shaking cruelty over
the last thirty centuries, and it is a war that is still being fought
today."
religion jews byzantine-empire religious-history
religion jews byzantine-empire religious-history
asked 2 hours ago
ed.hank
1,929520
asked 2 hours ago
ed.hank
1,929520
edited 1 hour ago
asked 2 hours ago
ed.hank
1,929520
asked 2 hours ago
ed.hank
1,929520
asked 2 hours ago
ed.hank
1,929520
1,929520
2
I think there are three answers worth investigating. First, we don't have as many records of polytheistic internecine conflict; I think your assumption that they are less prone to conflict is suspect. We just have more records about monotheists. (also, communications between monotheists occurs at a higher velocity). Second, mono theists means there are less opportunities for heterodoxy. Monotheists must agree on the creed; polytheists can have multiple interpretations. Third, monotheism is being used to unify larger and more complex societies. Easy to manage peasants.
– Mark C. Wallace♦
1 hour ago
2
This question would benefit from documenting prior research.
– Mark C. Wallace♦
1 hour ago
@MarkC.Wallace - I added the research i have down. And yes I agree with your points. 1, agreed there is no real documentation i have been able to find saying that polytheism was free of doctrinal conflict. 2, this would be interesting to expand on. 3, is this necessarily true? it seems like Rome was much more stable and unified before Constatine, after Constatine it seems like dogmatic arguments did as much damage to the empire as it did unify it. And again these are just my thoughts, I definitely could be wrong or missing the point.
– ed.hank
1 hour ago
One thing you might want to consider is the motivation behind the splits. I've seen speculation that, in certain times, the best way to get a separatist movement going was to base it on religion in some way.
– David Thornley
1 hour ago
I suspect that much of the conflict over dogma in 'monotheistic' religions arose from the way those religions originated. For example, Christianity began as a movement which comprised groups that all believed slightly different things, and worshipped in different ways. When they create a single "catholic" Christianity in the 4th century, which of those beliefs was 'correct'? Which was the 'right' way to worship? After all, if you got it wrong, weren't you condemning your followers to Hell?
– sempaiscuba♦
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
2
I think there are three answers worth investigating. First, we don't have as many records of polytheistic internecine conflict; I think your assumption that they are less prone to conflict is suspect. We just have more records about monotheists. (also, communications between monotheists occurs at a higher velocity). Second, mono theists means there are less opportunities for heterodoxy. Monotheists must agree on the creed; polytheists can have multiple interpretations. Third, monotheism is being used to unify larger and more complex societies. Easy to manage peasants.
– Mark C. Wallace♦
1 hour ago
2
This question would benefit from documenting prior research.
– Mark C. Wallace♦
1 hour ago
@MarkC.Wallace - I added the research i have down. And yes I agree with your points. 1, agreed there is no real documentation i have been able to find saying that polytheism was free of doctrinal conflict. 2, this would be interesting to expand on. 3, is this necessarily true? it seems like Rome was much more stable and unified before Constatine, after Constatine it seems like dogmatic arguments did as much damage to the empire as it did unify it. And again these are just my thoughts, I definitely could be wrong or missing the point.
– ed.hank
1 hour ago
One thing you might want to consider is the motivation behind the splits. I've seen speculation that, in certain times, the best way to get a separatist movement going was to base it on religion in some way.
– David Thornley
1 hour ago
I suspect that much of the conflict over dogma in 'monotheistic' religions arose from the way those religions originated. For example, Christianity began as a movement which comprised groups that all believed slightly different things, and worshipped in different ways. When they create a single "catholic" Christianity in the 4th century, which of those beliefs was 'correct'? Which was the 'right' way to worship? After all, if you got it wrong, weren't you condemning your followers to Hell?
– sempaiscuba♦
1 hour ago
2
2
I think there are three answers worth investigating. First, we don't have as many records of polytheistic internecine conflict; I think your assumption that they are less prone to conflict is suspect. We just have more records about monotheists. (also, communications between monotheists occurs at a higher velocity). Second, mono theists means there are less opportunities for heterodoxy. Monotheists must agree on the creed; polytheists can have multiple interpretations. Third, monotheism is being used to unify larger and more complex societies. Easy to manage peasants.
– Mark C. Wallace♦
1 hour ago
I think there are three answers worth investigating. First, we don't have as many records of polytheistic internecine conflict; I think your assumption that they are less prone to conflict is suspect. We just have more records about monotheists. (also, communications between monotheists occurs at a higher velocity). Second, mono theists means there are less opportunities for heterodoxy. Monotheists must agree on the creed; polytheists can have multiple interpretations. Third, monotheism is being used to unify larger and more complex societies. Easy to manage peasants.
– Mark C. Wallace♦
1 hour ago
2
2
This question would benefit from documenting prior research.
– Mark C. Wallace♦
1 hour ago
This question would benefit from documenting prior research.
– Mark C. Wallace♦
1 hour ago
@MarkC.Wallace - I added the research i have down. And yes I agree with your points. 1, agreed there is no real documentation i have been able to find saying that polytheism was free of doctrinal conflict. 2, this would be interesting to expand on. 3, is this necessarily true? it seems like Rome was much more stable and unified before Constatine, after Constatine it seems like dogmatic arguments did as much damage to the empire as it did unify it. And again these are just my thoughts, I definitely could be wrong or missing the point.
– ed.hank
1 hour ago
@MarkC.Wallace - I added the research i have down. And yes I agree with your points. 1, agreed there is no real documentation i have been able to find saying that polytheism was free of doctrinal conflict. 2, this would be interesting to expand on. 3, is this necessarily true? it seems like Rome was much more stable and unified before Constatine, after Constatine it seems like dogmatic arguments did as much damage to the empire as it did unify it. And again these are just my thoughts, I definitely could be wrong or missing the point.
– ed.hank
1 hour ago
One thing you might want to consider is the motivation behind the splits. I've seen speculation that, in certain times, the best way to get a separatist movement going was to base it on religion in some way.
– David Thornley
1 hour ago
One thing you might want to consider is the motivation behind the splits. I've seen speculation that, in certain times, the best way to get a separatist movement going was to base it on religion in some way.
– David Thornley
1 hour ago
I suspect that much of the conflict over dogma in 'monotheistic' religions arose from the way those religions originated. For example, Christianity began as a movement which comprised groups that all believed slightly different things, and worshipped in different ways. When they create a single "catholic" Christianity in the 4th century, which of those beliefs was 'correct'? Which was the 'right' way to worship? After all, if you got it wrong, weren't you condemning your followers to Hell?
– sempaiscuba♦
1 hour ago
I suspect that much of the conflict over dogma in 'monotheistic' religions arose from the way those religions originated. For example, Christianity began as a movement which comprised groups that all believed slightly different things, and worshipped in different ways. When they create a single "catholic" Christianity in the 4th century, which of those beliefs was 'correct'? Which was the 'right' way to worship? After all, if you got it wrong, weren't you condemning your followers to Hell?
– sempaiscuba♦
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
To expand on Kirsch's answer, a single god doesn't only remove the safety valve of multiplicity (where any doctrinal dispute about the intentions of one god can just be channeled into speculation about a new, additional god), it also dramatically raises the profile of the single remaining god.
Monotheistic systems tend to philosophically expand their deity from "sometimes helpful / sometimes vindictive supernatural being" to "alpha and omega of the whole universe". The deity portrayed in the Old Testament gradually transformed into an Anselmian "absolute maximum possible at everything" because philosophically, he has to fill every possible niche. He has to be the First Mover, he has to account for all existent phenomena, he has to embody all virtue, he has to judge all men. He can't share any of this with any other being, because that starts polytheism up again.
Once the deity figure has expanded to that scale, extremely minor disputes over doctrine become incredibly high stakes debates over eternity. The question raised in doctrinal disputes stops being, "If I use the wrong oath when passing through my front door threshold, will I have minor bad luck during my trip?" and starts being, "If I misidentify some element of the nature of my only god, will that doom me and my family to everlasting torment in the fires of hell?"
answered 1 hour ago
tbrookside
1212
New contributor
tbrookside is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
A very astute observation.
If you compare linguistic maps to sectarian maps (McEvedy's Penguin Atlas series are great for this), you'll notice something else: they have a distinct tendency to align. When the Roman Empire split into Greek and Roman halves, the Empire's Christian religion split as well. When German tribes started converting en-masse, they tended to prefer Arianisim*. When Persians split from the (otherwise mostly Arab) Caliphate, they embraced Shia. When the Berber-speaking areas of western North Africa split from the Caliphate, they also (for a while) embraced Shia.
Really the best way to look at religious schisms is as a combination of cultural and political schisms. If one person embraces a non-orthodox belief, that's likely just randomly their personal conviction. However, if a coherent group of people does it, that's obviously no longer random. There's clearly a reason for that.
Schisms offer multiple benefits:
- Secular rulers of the affected area can no longer be pressured by foreign clerics (who themselves may be controlled by, or actually be, foreign political rulers)
- Its a good way to prevent your culture from getting completely wiped out by the orthodox culture. This includes things like language, dress, customs, etc.
- Its a good way bind your subjects together more strongly
- There is still some cultural affiliation with the orthodox culture. Just no control.
Likewise, if you are so far away from the centers of orthodox power that political control is no issue, and cultural influence is actually weaker than you'd like, you'd be far better off sticking to the orthodox belief system to help increase your ties. This is why once the European Dark Ages set in Arianisim was quietly dropped, and places like SE Asia and Timbuktoo were never heavily Shia.
* - No, not Aryanism. Arianisim was a sect named after "Arius", who had a non-standard view of the Christian trinity.
answered 14 mins ago
T.E.D.♦
70.2k9155289
Oh, man. Now you just filled my head with the possibility that doctrine may follow grammar or vocabulary - Arianism may appear more sensible under German grammar than Latin. Christianity would be particularly vulnerable to this, because the mystery of the Trinity - a source for so many problems - would naturally not be expressed the same in all languages.
– tbrookside
12 mins ago
I never thought of it this way at all. your arguments sound very logical to me.
– ed.hank
2 mins ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
To expand on Kirsch's answer, a single god doesn't only remove the safety valve of multiplicity (where any doctrinal dispute about the intentions of one god can just be channeled into speculation about a new, additional god), it also dramatically raises the profile of the single remaining god.
Monotheistic systems tend to philosophically expand their deity from "sometimes helpful / sometimes vindictive supernatural being" to "alpha and omega of the whole universe". The deity portrayed in the Old Testament gradually transformed into an Anselmian "absolute maximum possible at everything" because philosophically, he has to fill every possible niche. He has to be the First Mover, he has to account for all existent phenomena, he has to embody all virtue, he has to judge all men. He can't share any of this with any other being, because that starts polytheism up again.
Once the deity figure has expanded to that scale, extremely minor disputes over doctrine become incredibly high stakes debates over eternity. The question raised in doctrinal disputes stops being, "If I use the wrong oath when passing through my front door threshold, will I have minor bad luck during my trip?" and starts being, "If I misidentify some element of the nature of my only god, will that doom me and my family to everlasting torment in the fires of hell?"
answered 1 hour ago
tbrookside
1212
New contributor
tbrookside is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
To expand on Kirsch's answer, a single god doesn't only remove the safety valve of multiplicity (where any doctrinal dispute about the intentions of one god can just be channeled into speculation about a new, additional god), it also dramatically raises the profile of the single remaining god.
Monotheistic systems tend to philosophically expand their deity from "sometimes helpful / sometimes vindictive supernatural being" to "alpha and omega of the whole universe". The deity portrayed in the Old Testament gradually transformed into an Anselmian "absolute maximum possible at everything" because philosophically, he has to fill every possible niche. He has to be the First Mover, he has to account for all existent phenomena, he has to embody all virtue, he has to judge all men. He can't share any of this with any other being, because that starts polytheism up again.
Once the deity figure has expanded to that scale, extremely minor disputes over doctrine become incredibly high stakes debates over eternity. The question raised in doctrinal disputes stops being, "If I use the wrong oath when passing through my front door threshold, will I have minor bad luck during my trip?" and starts being, "If I misidentify some element of the nature of my only god, will that doom me and my family to everlasting torment in the fires of hell?"
answered 1 hour ago
tbrookside
1212
New contributor
tbrookside is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
To expand on Kirsch's answer, a single god doesn't only remove the safety valve of multiplicity (where any doctrinal dispute about the intentions of one god can just be channeled into speculation about a new, additional god), it also dramatically raises the profile of the single remaining god.
Monotheistic systems tend to philosophically expand their deity from "sometimes helpful / sometimes vindictive supernatural being" to "alpha and omega of the whole universe". The deity portrayed in the Old Testament gradually transformed into an Anselmian "absolute maximum possible at everything" because philosophically, he has to fill every possible niche. He has to be the First Mover, he has to account for all existent phenomena, he has to embody all virtue, he has to judge all men. He can't share any of this with any other being, because that starts polytheism up again.
Once the deity figure has expanded to that scale, extremely minor disputes over doctrine become incredibly high stakes debates over eternity. The question raised in doctrinal disputes stops being, "If I use the wrong oath when passing through my front door threshold, will I have minor bad luck during my trip?" and starts being, "If I misidentify some element of the nature of my only god, will that doom me and my family to everlasting torment in the fires of hell?"
answered 1 hour ago
tbrookside
1212
New contributor
tbrookside is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
To expand on Kirsch's answer, a single god doesn't only remove the safety valve of multiplicity (where any doctrinal dispute about the intentions of one god can just be channeled into speculation about a new, additional god), it also dramatically raises the profile of the single remaining god.
Monotheistic systems tend to philosophically expand their deity from "sometimes helpful / sometimes vindictive supernatural being" to "alpha and omega of the whole universe". The deity portrayed in the Old Testament gradually transformed into an Anselmian "absolute maximum possible at everything" because philosophically, he has to fill every possible niche. He has to be the First Mover, he has to account for all existent phenomena, he has to embody all virtue, he has to judge all men. He can't share any of this with any other being, because that starts polytheism up again.
Once the deity figure has expanded to that scale, extremely minor disputes over doctrine become incredibly high stakes debates over eternity. The question raised in doctrinal disputes stops being, "If I use the wrong oath when passing through my front door threshold, will I have minor bad luck during my trip?" and starts being, "If I misidentify some element of the nature of my only god, will that doom me and my family to everlasting torment in the fires of hell?"
answered 1 hour ago
tbrookside
1212
New contributor
tbrookside is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 1 hour ago
tbrookside
1212
New contributor
tbrookside is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 1 hour ago
tbrookside
1212
answered 1 hour ago
tbrookside
1212
1212
New contributor
tbrookside is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
tbrookside is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
tbrookside is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
A very astute observation.
If you compare linguistic maps to sectarian maps (McEvedy's Penguin Atlas series are great for this), you'll notice something else: they have a distinct tendency to align. When the Roman Empire split into Greek and Roman halves, the Empire's Christian religion split as well. When German tribes started converting en-masse, they tended to prefer Arianisim*. When Persians split from the (otherwise mostly Arab) Caliphate, they embraced Shia. When the Berber-speaking areas of western North Africa split from the Caliphate, they also (for a while) embraced Shia.
Really the best way to look at religious schisms is as a combination of cultural and political schisms. If one person embraces a non-orthodox belief, that's likely just randomly their personal conviction. However, if a coherent group of people does it, that's obviously no longer random. There's clearly a reason for that.
Schisms offer multiple benefits:
- Secular rulers of the affected area can no longer be pressured by foreign clerics (who themselves may be controlled by, or actually be, foreign political rulers)
- Its a good way to prevent your culture from getting completely wiped out by the orthodox culture. This includes things like language, dress, customs, etc.
- Its a good way bind your subjects together more strongly
- There is still some cultural affiliation with the orthodox culture. Just no control.
Likewise, if you are so far away from the centers of orthodox power that political control is no issue, and cultural influence is actually weaker than you'd like, you'd be far better off sticking to the orthodox belief system to help increase your ties. This is why once the European Dark Ages set in Arianisim was quietly dropped, and places like SE Asia and Timbuktoo were never heavily Shia.
* - No, not Aryanism. Arianisim was a sect named after "Arius", who had a non-standard view of the Christian trinity.
answered 14 mins ago
T.E.D.♦
70.2k9155289
Oh, man. Now you just filled my head with the possibility that doctrine may follow grammar or vocabulary - Arianism may appear more sensible under German grammar than Latin. Christianity would be particularly vulnerable to this, because the mystery of the Trinity - a source for so many problems - would naturally not be expressed the same in all languages.
– tbrookside
12 mins ago
I never thought of it this way at all. your arguments sound very logical to me.
– ed.hank
2 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
A very astute observation.
If you compare linguistic maps to sectarian maps (McEvedy's Penguin Atlas series are great for this), you'll notice something else: they have a distinct tendency to align. When the Roman Empire split into Greek and Roman halves, the Empire's Christian religion split as well. When German tribes started converting en-masse, they tended to prefer Arianisim*. When Persians split from the (otherwise mostly Arab) Caliphate, they embraced Shia. When the Berber-speaking areas of western North Africa split from the Caliphate, they also (for a while) embraced Shia.
Really the best way to look at religious schisms is as a combination of cultural and political schisms. If one person embraces a non-orthodox belief, that's likely just randomly their personal conviction. However, if a coherent group of people does it, that's obviously no longer random. There's clearly a reason for that.
Schisms offer multiple benefits:
- Secular rulers of the affected area can no longer be pressured by foreign clerics (who themselves may be controlled by, or actually be, foreign political rulers)
- Its a good way to prevent your culture from getting completely wiped out by the orthodox culture. This includes things like language, dress, customs, etc.
- Its a good way bind your subjects together more strongly
- There is still some cultural affiliation with the orthodox culture. Just no control.
Likewise, if you are so far away from the centers of orthodox power that political control is no issue, and cultural influence is actually weaker than you'd like, you'd be far better off sticking to the orthodox belief system to help increase your ties. This is why once the European Dark Ages set in Arianisim was quietly dropped, and places like SE Asia and Timbuktoo were never heavily Shia.
* - No, not Aryanism. Arianisim was a sect named after "Arius", who had a non-standard view of the Christian trinity.
answered 14 mins ago
T.E.D.♦
70.2k9155289
Oh, man. Now you just filled my head with the possibility that doctrine may follow grammar or vocabulary - Arianism may appear more sensible under German grammar than Latin. Christianity would be particularly vulnerable to this, because the mystery of the Trinity - a source for so many problems - would naturally not be expressed the same in all languages.
– tbrookside
12 mins ago
I never thought of it this way at all. your arguments sound very logical to me.
– ed.hank
2 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
A very astute observation.
If you compare linguistic maps to sectarian maps (McEvedy's Penguin Atlas series are great for this), you'll notice something else: they have a distinct tendency to align. When the Roman Empire split into Greek and Roman halves, the Empire's Christian religion split as well. When German tribes started converting en-masse, they tended to prefer Arianisim*. When Persians split from the (otherwise mostly Arab) Caliphate, they embraced Shia. When the Berber-speaking areas of western North Africa split from the Caliphate, they also (for a while) embraced Shia.
Really the best way to look at religious schisms is as a combination of cultural and political schisms. If one person embraces a non-orthodox belief, that's likely just randomly their personal conviction. However, if a coherent group of people does it, that's obviously no longer random. There's clearly a reason for that.
Schisms offer multiple benefits:
- Secular rulers of the affected area can no longer be pressured by foreign clerics (who themselves may be controlled by, or actually be, foreign political rulers)
- Its a good way to prevent your culture from getting completely wiped out by the orthodox culture. This includes things like language, dress, customs, etc.
- Its a good way bind your subjects together more strongly
- There is still some cultural affiliation with the orthodox culture. Just no control.
Likewise, if you are so far away from the centers of orthodox power that political control is no issue, and cultural influence is actually weaker than you'd like, you'd be far better off sticking to the orthodox belief system to help increase your ties. This is why once the European Dark Ages set in Arianisim was quietly dropped, and places like SE Asia and Timbuktoo were never heavily Shia.
* - No, not Aryanism. Arianisim was a sect named after "Arius", who had a non-standard view of the Christian trinity.
answered 14 mins ago
T.E.D.♦
70.2k9155289
A very astute observation.
If you compare linguistic maps to sectarian maps (McEvedy's Penguin Atlas series are great for this), you'll notice something else: they have a distinct tendency to align. When the Roman Empire split into Greek and Roman halves, the Empire's Christian religion split as well. When German tribes started converting en-masse, they tended to prefer Arianisim*. When Persians split from the (otherwise mostly Arab) Caliphate, they embraced Shia. When the Berber-speaking areas of western North Africa split from the Caliphate, they also (for a while) embraced Shia.
Really the best way to look at religious schisms is as a combination of cultural and political schisms. If one person embraces a non-orthodox belief, that's likely just randomly their personal conviction. However, if a coherent group of people does it, that's obviously no longer random. There's clearly a reason for that.
Schisms offer multiple benefits:
- Secular rulers of the affected area can no longer be pressured by foreign clerics (who themselves may be controlled by, or actually be, foreign political rulers)
- Its a good way to prevent your culture from getting completely wiped out by the orthodox culture. This includes things like language, dress, customs, etc.
- Its a good way bind your subjects together more strongly
- There is still some cultural affiliation with the orthodox culture. Just no control.
Likewise, if you are so far away from the centers of orthodox power that political control is no issue, and cultural influence is actually weaker than you'd like, you'd be far better off sticking to the orthodox belief system to help increase your ties. This is why once the European Dark Ages set in Arianisim was quietly dropped, and places like SE Asia and Timbuktoo were never heavily Shia.
* - No, not Aryanism. Arianisim was a sect named after "Arius", who had a non-standard view of the Christian trinity.
answered 14 mins ago
T.E.D.♦
70.2k9155289
edited 2 mins ago
answered 14 mins ago
T.E.D.♦
70.2k9155289
answered 14 mins ago
T.E.D.♦
70.2k9155289
answered 14 mins ago
T.E.D.♦
70.2k9155289
70.2k9155289
Oh, man. Now you just filled my head with the possibility that doctrine may follow grammar or vocabulary - Arianism may appear more sensible under German grammar than Latin. Christianity would be particularly vulnerable to this, because the mystery of the Trinity - a source for so many problems - would naturally not be expressed the same in all languages.
– tbrookside
12 mins ago
I never thought of it this way at all. your arguments sound very logical to me.
– ed.hank
2 mins ago
add a comment |Â
Oh, man. Now you just filled my head with the possibility that doctrine may follow grammar or vocabulary - Arianism may appear more sensible under German grammar than Latin. Christianity would be particularly vulnerable to this, because the mystery of the Trinity - a source for so many problems - would naturally not be expressed the same in all languages.
– tbrookside
12 mins ago
I never thought of it this way at all. your arguments sound very logical to me.
– ed.hank
2 mins ago
Oh, man. Now you just filled my head with the possibility that doctrine may follow grammar or vocabulary - Arianism may appear more sensible under German grammar than Latin. Christianity would be particularly vulnerable to this, because the mystery of the Trinity - a source for so many problems - would naturally not be expressed the same in all languages.
– tbrookside
12 mins ago
Oh, man. Now you just filled my head with the possibility that doctrine may follow grammar or vocabulary - Arianism may appear more sensible under German grammar than Latin. Christianity would be particularly vulnerable to this, because the mystery of the Trinity - a source for so many problems - would naturally not be expressed the same in all languages.
– tbrookside
12 mins ago
I never thought of it this way at all. your arguments sound very logical to me.
– ed.hank
2 mins ago
I never thought of it this way at all. your arguments sound very logical to me.
– ed.hank
2 mins ago
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f48634%2fwhy-do-western-monotheistic-religions-seem-to-be-so-full-of-conflict-over-dogma%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
2
I think there are three answers worth investigating. First, we don't have as many records of polytheistic internecine conflict; I think your assumption that they are less prone to conflict is suspect. We just have more records about monotheists. (also, communications between monotheists occurs at a higher velocity). Second, mono theists means there are less opportunities for heterodoxy. Monotheists must agree on the creed; polytheists can have multiple interpretations. Third, monotheism is being used to unify larger and more complex societies. Easy to manage peasants.
– Mark C. Wallace♦
1 hour ago
2
This question would benefit from documenting prior research.
– Mark C. Wallace♦
1 hour ago
@MarkC.Wallace - I added the research i have down. And yes I agree with your points. 1, agreed there is no real documentation i have been able to find saying that polytheism was free of doctrinal conflict. 2, this would be interesting to expand on. 3, is this necessarily true? it seems like Rome was much more stable and unified before Constatine, after Constatine it seems like dogmatic arguments did as much damage to the empire as it did unify it. And again these are just my thoughts, I definitely could be wrong or missing the point.
– ed.hank
1 hour ago
One thing you might want to consider is the motivation behind the splits. I've seen speculation that, in certain times, the best way to get a separatist movement going was to base it on religion in some way.
– David Thornley
1 hour ago
I suspect that much of the conflict over dogma in 'monotheistic' religions arose from the way those religions originated. For example, Christianity began as a movement which comprised groups that all believed slightly different things, and worshipped in different ways. When they create a single "catholic" Christianity in the 4th century, which of those beliefs was 'correct'? Which was the 'right' way to worship? After all, if you got it wrong, weren't you condemning your followers to Hell?
– sempaiscuba♦
1 hour ago