Tópico: Malteismo - Deus existe e é maligno

[André Luiz]

Uma dúvida, os gregos já vinham cozinhando o monoteísmo séculos antes do advento do cristianismo?
Porque ele foi aceito rapidamente no mundo grego

[Gorducho]

Que eu saiba não.
Claro que tinha o deus aristotélico, mas acho que era coisa de filósofos, não algo pop. E uma divindade que não agia, não providenciava nada nem siquer tinha conhecimento do que se sucedia no mundo sublunar. Então coisa completamente fora de anseios pedestres...
Me parece mais um fenômeno coletivo de todo Império cujo centro-de-gravidade já tinha se deslocado pro leste na área grega. O Panteon clássico já estava sob ataque das muitas outras correntes religiosas advindas da Asia.
Me parece que foi mais o cristianismo que levou ao monoteísmo do que o reverso.
O Gibbon [O Declínio e a Queda do Império Romano] especula as seguintes razões pro triunfo do cristianismo — cujas até hoje me parecem a melhor base pra subsequentes aprofundamentos das análises:

• The inflexible, and, if we may use the expression, the intolerant zeal of the Christians, derived, it is true, from the Jewish religion, but purified from the narrow and unsocial spirit which, instead of inviting, had deterred the Gentiles from embracing the law of Moses.
• The doctrine of a future life, improved by every additional circumstance which could give weight and efficacy to that important truth.
• The miraculous powers ascribed to the primitive church.
• The pure and austere morals of the Christians.
• The union and discipline of the Christian republic, which gradually formed an independent and increasing state in the heart of the Roman empire.

[Gigaview]

Uma dúvida, os gregos já vinham cozinhando o monoteísmo séculos antes do advento do cristianismo?
Porque ele foi aceito rapidamente no mundo grego

Achei uma discussão interessante sobre isso:

I was reading The Republic by Plato and came across something I found very interesting.

In Book II he seems to be implying that the Ancient Greeks were actually monotheistic and all the different Gods that they created were commonly known to be Fables used to illustrate different aspects of their one God.

Throughout all of the Socrates – ADEIMANTUS dialogue, he continually refers to God in the singular and speaks of him as the all-powerful creator God above all. Not Zeus or any other of the Greek Pantheon by name, but “God”.

Take a look at this from the Socrates – ADEIMANTUS dialogue:
” Then, I said, let us begin and create in idea a State; and yet the true creator is necessity, who is the mother of our invention.
Of course, he replied.”

In the Socrates – ADEIMANTUS dialogue, they are discussing the censorship of “fiction” and we find this:
“A fault which is most serious, I said; the fault of telling a lie, and, what is more, a bad lie.

But when is this fault committed?
Whenever an erroneous representation is made of the nature of gods and heroes, --as when a painter paints a portrait not having the shadow of a likeness to the original.

Yes, he said, that sort of thing is certainly very blamable; but what are the stories which you mean?

First of all, I said, there was that greatest of all lies, in high places, which the poet told about Uranus, and which was a bad lie too, --I mean what Hesiod says that Uranus did, and how Cronus retaliated on him. The doings of Cronus, and the sufferings which in turn his son inflicted upon him, even if they were true, ought certainly not to be lightly told to young and thoughtless persons; if possible, they had better be buried in silence. But if there is an absolute necessity for their mention, a chosen few might hear them in a mystery, and they should sacrifice not a common [Eleusinian] pig, but some huge and unprocurable victim; and then the number of the hearers will be very few indeed.

Why, yes, said he, those stories are extremely objectionable.

Yes, Adeimantus, they are stories not to be repeated in our State; the young man should not be told that in committing the worst of crimes he is far from doing anything outrageous; and that even if he chastises his father when does wrong, in whatever manner, he will only be following the example of the first and greatest among the gods.

I entirely agree with you, he said; in my opinion those stories are quite unfit to be repeated.

Neither, if we mean our future guardians to regard the habit of quarrelling among themselves as of all things the basest, should any word be said to them of the wars in heaven, and of the plots and fightings of the gods against one another, for they are not true. No, we shall never mention the battles of the giants, or let them be embroidered on garments; and we shall be silent about the innumerable other quarrels of gods
and heroes with their friends and relatives. If they would only believe us we would tell them that quarrelling is unholy, and that never up to this time has there been any, quarrel between citizens; this is what old men and old women should begin by telling children; and when they grow up, the poets also should be told to compose for them in a similar spirit. But the narrative of Hephaestus binding Here his mother, or how on another occasion Zeus sent him flying for taking her part when she was being beaten, and all the battles of the gods in Homer --these tales must not be admitted into our State, whether
they are supposed to have an allegorical meaning or not. For a young person cannot judge what is allegorical and what is literal; anything that he receives into his mind at that age is likely to become indelible and unalterable; and therefore it is most important that the tales which the young first hear should be models of virtuous thoughts.

There you are right, he replied; but if any one asks where are such models to be found and of what tales are you speaking --how shall we answer him?

I said to him, You and I, Adeimantus, at this moment are not poets, but founders of a State: now the founders of a State ought to know the general forms in which poets should cast their tales, and the limits which must be observed by them, but to make the tales is not their business.

Very true, he said; but what are these forms of theology which you mean?

Something of this kind, I replied: --God is always to be represented as he truly is, whatever be the sort of poetry, epic, lyric or tragic, in which the representation is given.”

I know that much of Platonic dialogue is facetious in nature to point out obvious flaws in opposing arguments, but he seems to be acknowledging the wholly allegorical nature of the stories of the Gods, created by the poets, as aspects of a single God.

And he seems to be implying that everyone knows this.

Have you read The Republic – at least all of Book II?
What do you make of it?

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/ancient-greeks-monotheistic.80839/

[El Elyon]

Uma dúvida, os gregos já vinham cozinhando o monoteísmo séculos antes do advento do cristianismo?

Não mais do que qualquer outra tradição religiosa cuja literatura é acessível. Monoteísmo por si só não é algo tão incomum assim, você encontra correntes monistas (que não é o mesmo de monoteísta, mas são correlatos) e henoteístas em diversas religiões, tradições filosóficas e cultos/mistérios presentes no Helenismo Tardio/Roma Republicana-Imperial.

[Sdelareza]

O Gibbon [O Declínio e a Queda do Império Romano] especula as seguintes razões pro triunfo do cristianismo — cujas até hoje me parecem a melhor base pra subsequentes aprofundamentos das análises:

• The inflexible, and, if we may use the expression, the intolerant zeal of the Christians, derived, it is true, from the Jewish religion, but purified from the narrow and unsocial spirit which, instead of inviting, had deterred the Gentiles from embracing the law of Moses.
• The doctrine of a future life, improved by every additional circumstance which could give weight and efficacy to that important truth.
• The miraculous powers ascribed to the primitive church.
• The pure and austere morals of the Christians.
• The union and discipline of the Christian republic, which gradually formed an independent and increasing state in the heart of the Roman empire.

Gorducho

Me parece que as ideias de Gibbon são vistas como erradas ou ultrapassadas pelos
historiadores atuais. Como aquela que o cristianismo foi o responsável pela queda
do Império Romano do Ocidente (que tinha pouca influência do cristianismo, ao
contrário do Império Romano do Oriente, bem mais fortemente cristianizado, e que duraria
por mais 1000 anos).

Uma teoria que explica porque o cristianismo se estabeleceu de forma predominante
 seria que os cristãos faziam um trabalho de assistência social durante epidemias
(enquanto os adeptos das religiões concorrentes simplesmente fugiam). Assim o que
foi inicialmente uma obscura seita judaica acabou conquistando a simpatia da maioria
da população.

[Gorducho]

Certes... certes... pero note que eu do Gibbon SÓ pus essa especulação acerca do porque o cristianismo ganhou a disputa de mercado que se dava na época com a decadência do Panteon clássico.
O trabalho comunitário que S/Pessoa cita pode ser enquadrado na 5ª  causa por exemplo.

Quanto aos gregos como especulado por Gigaview: de fato não temos como saber o que o povo comum pensava de fato dentro da cabeça deles...
Romanos "romanos" (latinos) por tudo que sei não pensavam numa divindade única.
Mas... claro: é difícil a gente saber o que se passava na cabeça do povo proper. Nos lugares onde tem uma religião obrigatória ou privilegiada pelo Governo é difícil se saber de fato o que as pessoas creem no intimo delas...

[Fenrir]

tirado do tópico contradições da bíblia:

"Satã provocou Davi a fazer um censo de Israel (I Crônicas 21:1).
Deus sugeriu Davi a fazer um censo de Israel (II Samuel 24:1)."