polytheism versus monotheism

[even_sven]

@CJJ*

As you note, some Indian provinces have passed anti-conversion laws, but most of these banned forcible conversion (this includes conversion by fraud or allurement). Mere adoption of a non-Hindu religion as a free act is not illegal, and has in fact been a means for many to protest a wretched social condition (cf. the example of Christianity’s early appeal to the lower classes). Does evangelizing monotheism then have an advantage–with respect to evangelizing in appealing to the poor–over polytheism? One might argue that a montheistic religion presents a more orderly view of the universe, and therefore naturally provides a sense of divine justice that might be appealing to a society’s “losers”. I don’t know the answer, but list the question only to show there is more to the triumph of monotheism than simple evangelization.

Some of India’s anti-conversion laws cover such issues os evangelizing to children without consulting their parents and other similar acts. There is also strong social pressure with the underlying threat of violence to not actively convert Hindus.

The major apeal of Christianity to India’s poor is three fold. First off, it is a casteless religion, which has always been a pretty easy sell (note that every one of the great religions that formed in India after Hinduism emphasize throwing off the caste system, although it lingers in most all communities). Secondly, in India it is largely a feminine religion and offers a place for poor women that they can’t find in either Hinduism or Islam. Finally, historically Christianity took root in the South, which tends to be poorer more divided. Moreover, the people of south India are ethnically and linguistically distinct, some consider modern Hinduism to be a tool of the culturally and politically dominent north.

Outside of India, it seem obvious that society’s “losers” were more dependent on missionaries, actively had their cultures destroyed by Christians (for example, in Guatemala the church along with the Spanish government broke up the villages and forced everyone in to church centered towns, where their labor could better be harnassed.) and were otherwise pretty forcibly made to hide or give up their native religions. I think this can be traced to evangelism and the sense of manifest destiny that evangelism fosters.

Anyway, I don’t think there is any reason why Christianity and Islam in particular are evangelical. Any evangelical religion is going to sink or swim, and of course we only see the swimmers.

[clairobscur]

@Lilairen

You get cases of conquest, where the gods of the victorious are imposed on the subjugated; this is not so much evangelism in my opinion as, “Our gods are the gods of this area by right of conquest. Show you’re a part of the legitimate social order by worshipping them”. Often, the gods of the conquered people continue to be worshipped too, or a syncretic development happens where They are equated with gods of the conquerors. .

There’s also the case of the gods of the conquered people being “seized”, their statues brought in the city or cities of the victorious people so that they could be worshipped there (and the idea was actually that by doing so, they were depriving the conquered people from their gods).

[CJJ]

There’s also the case of the gods of the conquered people being “seized”, their statues brought in the city or cities of the victorious people so that they could be worshipped there (and the idea was actually that by doing so, they were depriving the conquered people from their gods).

clairobscur, I’m wondering if you have an example in mind. The only one I can think of is the seizure of the ivory Zeus of Olympia (one of the seven ancient wonders) during the late Roman empire, and that I think was done because of its value, not for worship.

My guess is that most temples were looted by conquerors because they typically housed a treasury or some priceless artwork; if any idols were seized and brought back to the conqueror’s capital, I doubt they were for worship purposes.

[clairobscur]

@CJJ*

clairobscur, I’m wondering if you have an example in mind. The only one I can think of is the seizure of the ivory Zeus of Olympia (one of the seven ancient wonders) during the late Roman empire, and that I think was done because of its value, not for worship.
.

I was refering to Mesopotamia. For instance here :

in 1595 (?), the Hittite king Mursilis I advanced along the Euphrates, sacked Babylon, and even took away the statue of the supreme god of Babylonia, Marduk, from its temple, the Esagila.

[…]

After this spectacular raid, the Kassite tribes took over the city, but they were soon babylonized. The first king of the Kassite dynasty, Agum-Kakrîme, is reported to have defeated the Hittites and received back the statue of Marduk

[…]

in the thirteenth century, the Babylonian rulers had to respect the claims of Assyrian kings like Shalmaneser and Tikulti-Ninurta. The latter captured Babylon and took away the image of Marduk, but the occupation of Babylonia and the exile of the god did not last long. Another local power was Elam. In the twelfth century, its armies looted Babylon. Now it was their turn to capture the statue.