Why was manichaeism persecuted so much?
- Thread starter Mosshadow
- Start date
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
Probably because it has a lot of overlap with Christianism, more than a flatly different religion like Hinduism.
And maybe the same or similar with Islam.
And maybe the same or similar with Islam.
Was it? AFAIK Manichaeism was only really big in Rome and Persia, and (at least in Rome) wasn't really persecuted with more vigour than any other pagan religions.
fi11222
Banned
But it was also persecuted by the Sassanids, who had no vested interest in Christianity (quite the contrary).
Lateknight
Banned
The Zoroastrianist Persians? They were different from them, surly sevants of Angra Mainyu.
scholar
Banned
Manichaeism was seen as one of the greatest threats to early Christianity, and was a frequent target of Augustine, who was a Manichaen before he converted. As a religious institution they lingered for far longer than most religious groups and may have planned a part in the establishment of Islam. The last of the Manichees died out in China in the 1300s.
As for why, the answer is deceptively simple: they were dualistic and they made alternative claims about Jesus and Moses. Islam was willing to tolerate and cajole Christians, Zoroastrians (first dualistic, but monotheistic by the time of conquest), and Jews. They were misinformed about God, Christ, and the prophets, but they believed in God, and were people of the book. Manichaeism taught that God had an equal, that there was a God of Darkness and Evil. That this equal created the world, had a part in creating man, and that worshiping this God as Moses and others had done was akin to worshiping Satan now elevated to an equal footing with God. Islam wouldn't tolerate that, while the Church was even less tolerant. It is one thing to believe in many Gods, and thus being of a time of ignorance. It is one thing to believe in the same God, but to deny foundational principles, thus being a dhimmi in Islam or a Jew in Christianity. It is quite another to say that your God is a God of Darkness and Evil, that your flesh is an abomination - a curse created by this God, and that by following Moses or Solomon you are subordinating yourself to the devil.
Granted, Manichaeism was pretty wide spread and its teachings were very different depending on your region and your time period, but adding nuance to that view - even in an accommodating or conciliatory fashion - did little to improve their situation. In the Middle East they went East, in the West they converted or died.
Last edited:
It's because Manicheians, as people that rejected Matter (as they believed it was made by Ahriman and therefore evil) and the law of Men, looked like dangerous subversives to the eyes of the Sasanids' rule, who were Zurvanist-Zoroastrian, which put strong emphasis on the state as reflection of the Matter's original purity and the laws of Men begin directly inspired by Madza, and thus good.
TinyTartar
Banned
At least for Christian persecution of Manichaeism, it had to do with knowing God and rejecting him, which was the worst sin possible. It was not some kind of ignorant pagan worship due to not knowing any better, but rather, knowing full well about the nature of God and being intrinsically opposed to his creation (the world and what composed it, thinking it to be evil). It was not only heresy, it was to Christians an abomination.
fi11222
Banned
Agreed. This is true of Marcionism, and other sects like Sethians, Valentinians, etc. Manichaeism, though, had the most adherents by far.
The eastern part of the Roman Empire and, then, the Byzantine Empire, was the richest part of the Mediterranean basin. Not only from the economic point of view, but above all cultural. The heart of Christianity was in the early centuries, in fact, the Middle East, Syria, Egypt... Manichaeism spread rapidly in these areas, especially among the ascetic monasticism in Egypt, which had much in common with it.
Greatly simplifying the issue, for Christianity the danger of the doctrine derived from:
1. the thought of Mani was the concept that in the Reality there was a perennial conflict between Lux (Light) and Tenebrae (Darkness), the two constituent principles of the universe; they occupied the space, creating two "realms": that of Lux stretched upward, that of Tenebrae downward.
In this way, it was suggest that the Earth was the work of the Devil, while from the Bible the Christians knew that was God's work.
4. in addition, still simplifying, the Manichean ethics, strongly linked to harsh asceticism to free the prisoner Lux from the Materia (complete abstention from sexual intercourse to avoid creating other Materia that captures the Lux; frequent fastings; special diet based on vegetables), had found correlation with Christian monasticism in Egypt.
5. finally, in Manichaeism the Salvation was not for everyone: only the "electus" were "saved": only the Anima of the "electus" was destined to rejoin the world of the Lux; the "auditores", instead, lived to serving the "electus", but can not be saved and will have to undergo various reincarnations. For the Christian, although Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, the Homo can not know the will/wishes of God, and therefore accepts the doctrine of the many special ways and hidden towards the Salvation.
This is the situation toward the Christian world; others persons speak of "why" the Manichaeism was persecuted in the Far East, Asia, etc ...
Greatly simplifying the issue, for Christianity the danger of the doctrine derived from:
1. the thought of Mani was the concept that in the Reality there was a perennial conflict between Lux (Light) and Tenebrae (Darkness), the two constituent principles of the universe; they occupied the space, creating two "realms": that of Lux stretched upward, that of Tenebrae downward.
In this way, it was suggest that the Earth was the work of the Devil, while from the Bible the Christians knew that was God's work.
2. similarly, the Homo was divided in two, Materia and Anima. The Materia, created by Tenebrae, imprisoned the Anima, which was a part of the Lux, with the distinction of the sexes and the mechanism of procreation: also here, the Christian knew that Homo was created by God in His image and likeness. Moreover, the Body was considered as something negative, from which the Anima was to be free, whereas Christianity had recovered the "goodness" of the Body, much that the dead were not longer burned, but placed in tombs in the caves (catacombs: "κατά κυμβής", "near the caves") because the Last Day the Homo will rise again in Anima and Body (Materia) (eschatological doctrine of the resurrection of the body).
3. for the Christian, it was easy to match God with the Lux and the Devil/Evil with the Tenebrae, the serious danger seen by Christianity, however, was that, in the end, bringing at the extreme the Manichean thought, the Jewish and Christian God could be identified with the Devil/Evil (for Mani creator of the Earth and of the Homo: Mani in fact rejects the Jewish God), that God and Devil/Evil coincide.
5. finally, in Manichaeism the Salvation was not for everyone: only the "electus" were "saved": only the Anima of the "electus" was destined to rejoin the world of the Lux; the "auditores", instead, lived to serving the "electus", but can not be saved and will have to undergo various reincarnations. For the Christian, although Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, the Homo can not know the will/wishes of God, and therefore accepts the doctrine of the many special ways and hidden towards the Salvation.
This is the situation toward the Christian world; others persons speak of "why" the Manichaeism was persecuted in the Far East, Asia, etc ...
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
So, the Manicheians are not at all the stereotypical view of 'devil worshippers' who believe in sexual license and drunkenness.
Rather they go in the opposite direction and are against sex, against the simple pleasures of life, perhaps even against happiness. Am I understanding this correctly?
(with the standard proviso that often people practice religion differently from theory. I mean, give people some credit for being practical after all)
PS Am I correct in remembering reading that the Manicheians were against slavery?
Rather they go in the opposite direction and are against sex, against the simple pleasures of life, perhaps even against happiness. Am I understanding this correctly?
(with the standard proviso that often people practice religion differently from theory. I mean, give people some credit for being practical after all)
PS Am I correct in remembering reading that the Manicheians were against slavery?
Yes, they were. So was one of the religion they came from, Zoroastrianism. As far as I know, Christianity was reluctant but acknowledged the need for it.
Anyways, yes, the stereotype of Manicheians as people believing hedonism is rather incorrect, since, as many people stated above, their creed was strongly against worldly pleasures.