581
Christian actress spent 5 years in court defending her right to make anti-LGBTQ+ comments. She just lost. (www.lgbtqnation.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/atheism@lemmy.world
128 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

get your point and I don't mind saying fuck all religions, but historically, polytheistic societies were more tolerant and usually pretty progressive. Much less (if any) dogma.

Idk, I think that's a pretty hard claim to make. One that's mainly dependent on the fact that the majority of written history happened after the advent of monotheism, especially in the west.

If we examine the body of evidence of polytheistic cultures outside western influence, things get a bit more complicated. Especially considering that terms like progressive and tolerant are subjective concepts entrenched in the eurocentric cross-examination of cultures.

In ancient Mesopotamia, people were more able to accept the concept of dualism and polytheism, however they were also much more likely to participate in the destruction of entire cultures to capture the idol of a rival god. How do you weigh that with the modern understanding of concepts like progressiveness or tolerance?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You're literally making my point for me.

    In ancient Mesopotamia, people were more able to accept the concept of dualism and polytheism, however they were also much more likely to participate in the destruction of entire cultures to capture the idol of a rival god

    "RIVAL" god.

    a person or thing competing with another for the same objective or for superiority in the same field of activity.

    That's the proto-version of dogmatic monotheism. That's the origin of the first commandment. That's THE reason monotheism is so unaccepting and violent.

    I'm not going to write a several page essay detailing why this is so. Do you know why Jesus was accepted as a deity to the Roman and Greek pantheons at the time, instead of being seen as a rival god? How the same thing happened later in the North of Europe as well with norse polytheism?

    Polytheism by its very nature has more explanatory power, as not every explanation is "God works in mysterious ways" as one god is considered omnipotent and infallible, whereasin polytheism gods are often more humane, fickle, and fallible, despite being very powerful.

    terms like progressive and tolerant are subjective concepts entrenched in the eurocentric cross-examination of cultures.

    Not really. Do you kill everything different from you? Then you're not too tolerant. "Progressive" is also not too subjective. Before the Christianisation of the Nordics, for instance, "Viking" rape laws were far more progressive than their so-called "civilized" European counterparts. On the continent, women were considered property and so rape was a property crime -- there was no "victim," but the father or husband, whose property had been damaged.

    That's not really subjective of a take, is it? To think that an attitude of "women are people" is more progressive than "women are things"?

    Or do you consider that a subjective thing..?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    You're literally making my point for me.

    I beg to differ. I think you're making some assumptions about the innate qualities of polytheistic societies.

    Just because deities within certain polytheistic religions were rivals, doesn't imply the advent of monotheism. Most polytheistic religions had sects or cults that conflicted with other sects within the same pantheon.

    Not really. Do you kill everything different from you? Then you're not too tolerant.

    Okay, then explain the Mongol empire? They were polytheistic, and more liberal with religious freedoms than nearly any other empire in history..... Does their use of violence negate their tolerance?

    We can look at branches of the Mongolian empire 200 years later that would transition from polytheism to monotheistic islamist. Did they become more violent after the transition? Nope, they assimilated into the culture and became the local government for generations.

    "Progressive" is also not too subjective. Before the Christianisation of the Nordics, for instance, "Viking" rape laws were far more progressive than their so-called "civilized" European counterparts. On the continent, women were considered property and so rape was a property crime -- there was no "victim," but the father or husband, whose property had been damaged.

    We have no written record of any laws of the Viking. We have second hand information from the perspective of Christian priest, but I'd hardly claim that gives us any information about the actual practice and context of "Viking rape laws".

    For all we know these laws could have been based on the same proprietary motivation of monotheistic societies who recorded it. And if you are interpreting secondary sources as your primary sources, then we must assume their other observations of the same culture to be true. That the Viking culture was based on the rape and pillage of Christianity, not exactly a progressive perspective.....

    That's not really subjective of a take, is it? To think that an attitude of "women are people" is more progressive than "women are things"?

    First of all, that argument is entirely dependent on assuming that Viking in Viking culture women were thought of as equals.....which is doubtful. Just because they aren't labeled as property, doesn't mean they weren't second class citizens. More than likely Viking cultures just didn't have the same cultural understanding of property as their monotheistic counterparts.

    Secondly, yes with added context that statement is entirely subjective. If a society treats their own women as people, but is perfectly fine with raping and enslaving women in other cultures, are they truly progressive? Or do they just understand that what's good for the cow is good for the farmer?

    I do find it funny that one of my primary complaints with this historical interpretation is that it is too dependent on a eurocentric representation of history, and your rebuttals have only been composed of European examples.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent