Monotheism is not economically, or socially viable

[ChieftheCef]

Athens, Babylon, Rome, Egypt and others were all better than ancient israel, because they were open to the other: so, and this is really a long list, less people would be hurt, physically or mentally, for their life choices and so they became more efficient and economically productive benefiting everyone within and somewhat out of it's bounds. The Ancient Israelites, and Persians, and other stubborn people were closed off from others, and so their economics went kaput.

 

[PureX]

Every culture needs a degree of rigidity to hold it together. Yet every culture also needs the fluidity to be able to adapt to the ever-changing conditions of their immediate circumstances. Religions, economies, politics, and cultures in general all need to be maintained and protected, but they also need to be morphed and adapted as necessary, and to improve.

Exclusive monotheism will not be the best religious choice in a time of a lot of human migration and empirical intersection.

 

[Quintessence]

I don't follow.

As a polytheist my criticisms of monotheism are numerous, but this is definitely not among them. I'm just not seeing how the answer to the question "how many are the gods" would have any substantial impact on economics.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't follow.

As a polytheist my criticisms of monotheism are numerous, but this is definitely not among them. I'm just not seeing how the answer to the question "how many are the gods" would have any substantial impact on economics.

I get it. I think it's more about open vs. closed pantheons, though... with the assumption that monotheists tend to have closed pantheons (of a single god) and polytheists tend to have open pantheons.

Affinity through sharing things in common is a thing. If two societies that were predominantly polytheistic (with open pantheons) were able to worship each other's gods, then this would be something in common that would help those societies become closer. This closeness would then express itself through military alliances, trade agreements, etc.

On the other side... as an example, think of how marriage was used to build alliances in the past. Now consider how much an obstacle it would be for an alliance if Kingdom A refused to allow its princes and princesses to marry into Kingdom B because Kingdom B worshipped gods that Kingdom A's religious authorities considered false.

 

[ChieftheCef]

I don't follow.

As a polytheist my criticisms of monotheism are numerous, but this is definitely not among them. I'm just not seeing how the answer to the question "how many are the gods" would have any substantial impact on economics.

It's the ancient mechanism by which Athens, Rome, Babylon and Egypt operated, openness to the other. It's a trait of polytheism.

 

[ChieftheCef]

I don't follow.

As a polytheist my criticisms of monotheism are numerous, but this is definitely not among them. I'm just not seeing how the answer to the question "how many are the gods" would have any substantial impact on economics.

Imagine this. You have a god. Now you have priests, people making money to do for this god. Now you have a festival, plus all the people that would be getting SOMETHING out of it. It just compounds from there. More economics mean better wellbeing, which means more productive people which means better economics etc.

 

[ChieftheCef]

I get it. I think it's more about open vs. closed pantheons, though... with the assumption that monotheists tend to have closed pantheons (of a single god) and polytheists tend to have open pantheons.

Affinity through sharing things in common is a thing. If two societies that were predominantly polytheistic (with open pantheons) were able to worship each other's gods, then this would be something in common that would help those societies become closer. This closeness would then express itself through military alliances, trade agreements, etc.

On the other side... as an example, think of how marriage was used to build alliances in the past. Now consider how much an obstacle it would be for an alliance if Kingdom A refused to allow its princes and princesses to marry into Kingdom B because Kingdom B worshipped gods that Kingdom A's religious authorities considered false.

Entirely that too!

 

[ChieftheCef]

Every culture needs a degree of rigidity to hold it together. Yet every culture also needs the fluidity to be able to adapt to the ever-changing conditions of their immediate circumstances. Religions, economies, politics, and cultures in general all need to be maintained and protected, but they also need to be morphed and adapted as necessary, and to improve.

Exclusive monotheism will not be the best religious choice in a time of a lot of human migration and empirical intersection.

That is all true as far as I can see!

 

[Rival]

It's the ancient mechanism by which Athens, Rome, Babylon and Egypt operated, openness to the other. It's a trait of polytheism.

Bu this is ridiculous.

The largest economies in the world have been Christian and Islamic.

So monotheism makes better economies I guess?

It's not really sensible.

 

[ChieftheCef]

Bu this is ridiculous.

The largest economies in the world have been Christian and Islamic.

So monotheism makes better economies I guess?

It's not really sensible.

No they really haven't. They did live through the hell that Christianity proposed but they weren't Christian. But do explain

 

[Rival]

No they really haven't. They did live through the hell that Christianity proposed but they weren't Christian. But do explain

This sounds very an anti-Christian and quite polemical.

I'm not bothering.

 

[Rival]

I get it. I think it's more about open vs. closed pantheons, though... with the assumption that monotheists tend to have closed pantheons (of a single god) and polytheists tend to have open pantheons.

Affinity through sharing things in common is a thing. If two societies that were predominantly polytheistic (with open pantheons) were able to worship each other's gods, then this would be something in common that would help those societies become closer. This closeness would then express itself through military alliances, trade agreements, etc.

On the other side... as an example, think of how marriage was used to build alliances in the past. Now consider how much an obstacle it would be for an alliance if Kingdom A refused to allow its princes and princesses to marry into Kingdom B because Kingdom B worshipped gods that Kingdom A's religious authorities considered false.

For Christianity though, Paul allows intermarriage.

Judaism does not.

Islam does in some senses.

Baha'i.... goodness knows.

 

[☆Dreamwind☆]

I don't really know? I think it has more to do with how countries run their economies, the size of the population, not all of which is determined strictly by those born in the country, cost of living, trade, educational access, health, infrastructure, inflation, job growth, and tons of other factors. Plus the economy is known to rise and fall over the decades. It's been a long time since I took economics, so I'm probably getting some stuff wrong.

 

[ChieftheCef]

I don't really know? I think it has more to do with how countries run their economies, the size of the population, not all of which is determined strictly by those born in the country, cost of living, trade, educational access, health, infrastructure, inflation, job growth, and tons of other factors. Plus the economy is known to rise and fall over the decades. It's been a long time since I took economics, so I'm probably getting some stuff wrong.

I could see it. But openness is a trait they have, closed societies just kind of flumax.

 

[ChieftheCef]

I could see it. But openness is a trait they have, closed societies just kind of flumax.

I mean, the dampening the people involved feel and the problems economically are within certain boundaries everywhere that they are. They can be systemic, as they were in Ancient Israel and they amounted to mostly just gibberjash because the religocash

 

[Nakosis]

Athens, Babylon, Rome, Egypt and others were all better than ancient israel, because they were open to the other: so, and this is really a long list, less people would be hurt, physically or mentally, for their life choices and so they became more efficient and economically productive benefiting everyone within and somewhat out of it's bounds. The Ancient Israelites, and Persians, and other stubborn people were closed off from others, and so their economics went kaput.

Well, there would certainly be many more religious trinkets one could sell. Diversity is certainly good for capitalism, even a diversity of Gods.

 

[ChieftheCef]

Well, there would certainly be many more religious trinkets one could sell. Diversity is certainly good for capitalism, even a diversity of Gods.

Exactly now take in the amount of everything else that comes with that. Everything. You can't! It's a whole universe of things. It's incomprehensible, unable to be comprehended.

 

[Quintessence]

Imagine this. You have a god. Now you have priests, people making money to do for this god. Now you have a festival, plus all the people that would be getting SOMETHING out of it. It just compounds from there. More economics mean better wellbeing, which means more productive people which means better economics etc.

So... I'm still not quite following. Possibly because you are extending a bit beyond the "how many are the gods" question and instead talking about more diverse and broad issues of both theology and religious practices.

"How many are the gods" doesn't necessarily correspond to "how many and often are the festivals worshiping the gods." I mean, you can have only one god in a religion and have as many as or even more festivals than a religion that honors multiple gods. It doesn't really correspond to the quantity of clergy or their economic activities per clergy member either. And I'm not even gonna get into that weird assumption that more economics means better wellbeing other than to point to our present sixth mass extinction event and raise an eyebrow.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

For Christianity though, Paul allows intermarriage.

Judaism does not.

Islam does in some senses.

Baha'i.... goodness knows.

In practical terms, though, royal intermarriage was rare to nonexistent between Christians and Pagans, Christians and Muslims, Catholics and Protestants, etc.

 

[1213]

Athens, Babylon, Rome, Egypt and others were all better than ancient israel, because they were open to the other: so, and this is really a long list, less people would be hurt, physically or mentally, for their life choices and so they became more efficient and economically productive benefiting everyone within and somewhat out of it's bounds. The Ancient Israelites, and Persians, and other stubborn people were closed off from others, and so their economics went kaput.

Why do you think it has anything to do with monotheism? By what I see, the problems Israel has, come from rejecting the one and only true God.