One of the reasons why the old mythologies (in particular, Greek, Roman, Norse, etc) have pretty much died out as belief systems is that they were too complicated for the average person to understand and thus, the belief systems were not palatable to potential converts. So if someone were to retool the mythologies into something converts could consider a viable belief system, how would they go about it? Would the mythologies need to be simplified or the stories changed to include morality tales ala the Bible?
How to make mythologies more palatable to potential converts
- Thread starter Nathan Bernacki
- Start date
Skallagrim
Banned
They weren't too complicated at all. In fact, what we see in the books on mythology now is the compendium version. At the time, different parts of the mythology were stressed in certain times and places, while others were ignored or relegated to the background. Complexity wasn't the issue.
The issue is that they were too tolerant. In any competition between two religions, the least tolerant one generally wins. Be exclusivist. Be very clear about the fact thay you and you alone are offering the Truth, and all others are heathens and liars who consort with demons and filth. Don't welcome other religions into your society if they are exclusivist. Toleration only works if the others are willing to syncretise and/or co-exist, too. If there are ten religions, and nine of them say that there are many gods, but the ones they worship are the most worthy etc. ...and one says only their God is real and all the others are demons from hell... then I can tell you which one is going to be successful in the long term. (Provided that all aim to convert: exclusive groups that are very closed, such as Judaism, limit their own "success" -- and by design.)
Exclusivity adds to the attraction of a religion. That may seem counter-intuitive. It might be more sensible to think that being the tolerant one makes you less divisive, broadens your appeal... No. It only waters you down until you dissipate. Religion needs fervour. Better to have a hundred really fervent believers than a thousand wishy-washy types who will just adopt new gods when that looks like the better deal.
Here's another counter-intuitive point: a religion needs to demand things from its adherents. If it tells you that everything is okay, that's comforting. It may seem reasonable that people want comfort from religion. Wrong. They want a religion that feels real, and soft stuff doesn't feel like that. Christianity has a God who died for your sins, and you cannot possibly hope to match that sacrifice. You can only aspire to do your best to measure up as well as you can. Being torn to shreds by lions because you refuse to denounce your God is literally the best possible ending you can hope for: martyrdom. The Romans were perplexed at this, because they didn't understand the sentiment. They didn't get why Christians didn't just keep worshipping their own God, but also pay respect to the deified Emperor. The idea of being so attached to one God that all other Gods -- and all authority of the State -- could and should be cast aside in favour of obeying this God... it was alien.
Finally, there's active proselytising. The Religio Romana cared very little to do this. It syncretised. It absorbed others into itself, and those others were willing to be absorbed. That, or (like the Jews) they were "only for the select few", and thus no competitors for the wider masses. A religion that attempts actively to convert others will have greater success than one that just kicks back and assumes itself to simply be the standard of the natural order of society. So you must proselytise (meaning you need a reason for that).
Find a way to make your religion intolerant, exclusivist, zealous, demanding and proselytising. That's the recipe for success. For the Religio Romana, this would almost by definition require an integral overhaul/rebirth (on the scale of Vedism into Hinduism). Contrary to popular belief, Julian the Apostate was actually one of the few people headed in the right direction to possibly achieve this.
The issue is that they were too tolerant. In any competition between two religions, the least tolerant one generally wins. Be exclusivist. Be very clear about the fact thay you and you alone are offering the Truth, and all others are heathens and liars who consort with demons and filth. Don't welcome other religions into your society if they are exclusivist. Toleration only works if the others are willing to syncretise and/or co-exist, too. If there are ten religions, and nine of them say that there are many gods, but the ones they worship are the most worthy etc. ...and one says only their God is real and all the others are demons from hell... then I can tell you which one is going to be successful in the long term. (Provided that all aim to convert: exclusive groups that are very closed, such as Judaism, limit their own "success" -- and by design.)
Exclusivity adds to the attraction of a religion. That may seem counter-intuitive. It might be more sensible to think that being the tolerant one makes you less divisive, broadens your appeal... No. It only waters you down until you dissipate. Religion needs fervour. Better to have a hundred really fervent believers than a thousand wishy-washy types who will just adopt new gods when that looks like the better deal.
Here's another counter-intuitive point: a religion needs to demand things from its adherents. If it tells you that everything is okay, that's comforting. It may seem reasonable that people want comfort from religion. Wrong. They want a religion that feels real, and soft stuff doesn't feel like that. Christianity has a God who died for your sins, and you cannot possibly hope to match that sacrifice. You can only aspire to do your best to measure up as well as you can. Being torn to shreds by lions because you refuse to denounce your God is literally the best possible ending you can hope for: martyrdom. The Romans were perplexed at this, because they didn't understand the sentiment. They didn't get why Christians didn't just keep worshipping their own God, but also pay respect to the deified Emperor. The idea of being so attached to one God that all other Gods -- and all authority of the State -- could and should be cast aside in favour of obeying this God... it was alien.
Finally, there's active proselytising. The Religio Romana cared very little to do this. It syncretised. It absorbed others into itself, and those others were willing to be absorbed. That, or (like the Jews) they were "only for the select few", and thus no competitors for the wider masses. A religion that attempts actively to convert others will have greater success than one that just kicks back and assumes itself to simply be the standard of the natural order of society. So you must proselytise (meaning you need a reason for that).
Find a way to make your religion intolerant, exclusivist, zealous, demanding and proselytising. That's the recipe for success. For the Religio Romana, this would almost by definition require an integral overhaul/rebirth (on the scale of Vedism into Hinduism). Contrary to popular belief, Julian the Apostate was actually one of the few people headed in the right direction to possibly achieve this.
Last edited:
Greek, Roman, and Norse religion was never meant to "win over" converts. We need to understand the difference between religion and faith/belief. Rome was one of the most religious societies ever to exist. Literally every public function was preceded by a religious ceremony of some sort. To the Romans, religion was a fact, not a belief. This applies to the Greeks and Germanic tribes as well. Mythology wasn't nearly as important as the daily sacrifices one needed to perform. Indeed, mythology was more or less irrelevant and intuitive. Every family and village had their own fireside stories to tell, but there was little concept of scripture - that is a Near Eastern tradition that had almost no equivalent in the West.
It should be noted that in Rome around the time of Jesus, the most successful religions were the cult of Isis and the cult of Cybele. These cults were similar to Judaism or Christianity in their initiation rites. Once you were in, you were "set apart" from the rest of the world. This naturally earned them the ire of the Roman authorities who strongly believed that religion was a public and impersonal reality. Even by the time of Alexander the Great, the "old gods" of Mt. Olympus were falling into irrelevance in favor of new gods that had a greater impact on one's personal life. I personally believe that, if not for Christianity, paganism would have been supplanted by one, two, or three of these cults.
It should be noted that in Rome around the time of Jesus, the most successful religions were the cult of Isis and the cult of Cybele. These cults were similar to Judaism or Christianity in their initiation rites. Once you were in, you were "set apart" from the rest of the world. This naturally earned them the ire of the Roman authorities who strongly believed that religion was a public and impersonal reality. Even by the time of Alexander the Great, the "old gods" of Mt. Olympus were falling into irrelevance in favor of new gods that had a greater impact on one's personal life. I personally believe that, if not for Christianity, paganism would have been supplanted by one, two, or three of these cults.
Last edited:
It should be said that Judaism used to be a proselytizing relogion as well, though not to the extent that christianity and Islam. But because of both Christian and Muslim laws forbid them from doing so they were eventually forced to "turtle up", as it were.
Skallagrim
Banned
There are two big myths about Julian the Apostate:
1) That his success would mean the victory of the Religio Romana (over Christianity).
2) That his success was highly unlikely because his ideas were to "philosophical" for the masses.
Both are highly incorrect, and they also contradict each other. Julian's attempt to give his religion an organisational structure and an official canon were in fact intended to copy some factors that made Christianity more successful. In reforming religion to better combat Christianity, he was going to fundamentally alter it. As such, if he had succeeded, he would have accomplished the founding of a "successor religion" to the old faith-- rather than a preservation of it.
His philosophical inclinations tended heavily towards neoplatonist ideas. That, too, was an innovation compared to the old faith. It was again an element that had awarded various mystery cults at the time with considerable success. Note that gnostic schools and faiths (which were rooted in many of the same philosophical ideas) did manage to be a serious competitor for mainline Christianity... after the Religio Romana had already been dealt the fatal blow. Also, Christianity itself is actually quite abstract and philosophical. We are dealing here with a God whose allness exceeds everything we know; who is a trinity with three parts that are not each other but which are all fully God; who is an absolute unity despite being a trinity. I can keep going. This is not simple stuff. If someone thinks religions only succeed if they dumb down, that someone must be from a world where Christianity never made it big. So essentially, Julian's "philosophical" bent was no obstacle to success at all.
None of this is to say Julian would've automatically succeeded if he'd lived longer, nor that his reformed religion was going to "win" even if he did get extra decades to implement it. There was no guarantee. But his plans were far more coherent than often thought, far more astute and politically realistic than commonly believed, and far more likely to achieve success with the masses than just about any other religios competitor for Christianity at the time. He combined the structural/organisational advantages of Christianity with the mystery/philosophy angle that attracted people to mystery religions, and with the mythological familiarity of the old religion. The neoplatonism furthermore carries the idea of a "fallen world" that we must escape from by purifying ourselves and gaining gnosis. Just as with Dharmic religions, the idea that you must work to free yourself from a fallen world is thus present. That's a very good start for religious success.
I would say one of the strongpoints of Christianity compared to pagan believes is it's view of the afterlife and the high accesibility of a good place therein. It helped creating the fervour. A second factor is the expectation of an end of times within the own lifetime. The traditional Helenic religion scores lousy on both points. Hades is an awful place and the golden age is in the past.
Study Hindu mythology, they absorb story of Muslim prophet Mohamad , Christ in book name Bhavishya Purana literally means about-future-story.