Idesigner wrote:The number one weapon of monotheistics ( Jews, Christians, muslims & few others) was the book.
Which polytheists also had.
Their book gave them authenticity and proof. Primitives felt helpless as they had no writings and no books.
Not all polytheistic religions were completely oral. See: Greeks, Romans, Hellenistic, Indian (take your pick, please!), Persian, and others. Though many 'primitives', such as the highly credulous Franks, *did* believe that writings had special powers. There are actually really old Bibles in places like Ireland which have bits of the pages missing because the people believed the *book* was magic and couldn't read it for the stories or moral guidance or whatever.
Book is proof, without book means trying to claim a house without documents.
A book of religious beliefs is only proof that someone believes those things. Not that it's true.
To modern man it looks absurd as we all know those books are full of pig shitts.
That's not the reason *I* don't believe the books. I don't believe the books because they're full of undocumented assertions that aren't backed up anywhere but in the books. Like how the Gospels claim there was an eclipse and earthquake when Jesus died, yet there's not a single account of these things. And that's even ignoring the fact that the crucifixion supposedly happened during Passover, which is always during a new moon, and hence, an eclipse couldn't have happened anyway.
Ancients can not cope and argue when faced with books as they really belived its all from god . Others got it and they dont.
Very sad and very true. But that doesn't really make the case for monotheism- it only makes the case that there were many ignorant people at the time. Well... duh.
Sprituality of pagans did not stand a chance when their opponents had book on their side.Their oral traditions was no match.
Actually, they did just fine when compared to equally, or even less, educated monotheists. Neo-platonism, Stoicism, even Epicureanism (which the early Christian church stepped on HARD when they got power) were busy giving the early Christians a resounding metaphysical thrashing because they had their own traditions, books, philosophical systems, etc. The oral traditions of most polytheists had, for the most part (save on the far edges of various empires) been in written form, discussed and dissected, for centuries or longer.
Johny came lately Mohemmed invented his own book, claim it was from god and won over lots of pagans of Arabia.
Indeed. Most of the early converts, it seems, were in it for the cash. It turned serious pretty quickly though.
Books can be changed, reinterpreted or rewrote and can be made up as they go along. Pretty flexible!! Images are smashed & gone.
Not canonized 'scripture.' It's set, unchangable, for all time. Islam even goes so far as to say, in some cases, that the book is not the book if it's not in the same *language* in which it was originally written down. Which is just one more step of setting in stone.
Icons are an entirely different issue. And they're not all 'smashed and gone.' Been to a museum lately? I suggest you get over to London, Amsterdam or Berlin. They've got TONS of old images of gods, stories of gods, temples to them, and many of the stories have been re-collected and translated into modern languages after (in some cases) being lost to history for centuries or millenia. That it was, in many cases, Biblical scholars who were trying to back up the 'history' of the Hebrew Bible, and found that it didn't in most cases (save a few minor details) was just extra irony.
Even world is divided between people of book and people witjout book.
Disturbing. This is no way to run things- it's exclusionary and can turn very deadly quickly. I mean, what's the difference between someone saying "I will show these people 'the truth' and, using their logic and knowledge, they will come to my conclusions" and "I have tried to show these people 'the truth' but they're not listening- obviously they are evil or tempted by some evil spirit- thus I will forcibly convert them or kill them."
Surprisingly, it's an almost non-existent line. Which is why it's better to just junk something that takes an anti-logical tack, or that works backwards from a conclusion to evidence and ignores or demolishes that which will not back up its claims. In this category are all current literalist monotheisms, any variation on Platonic thought, any variant of Hegelian thought, etc. There are a lot- but religion paints the broadest target because it often tries to make the world as it wants it to be, making life a living hell for many of us.