Prayer and Breakfast

In February of each year, just as folk gather to discover whether a groundhog "sees" his shadow, our national political representatives, their lackeys and those who wish to influence them gather to attend something called the "National Prayer Breakfast" (hereafter "NPB").  This ritual (is it that?) has taken place for 70 years, it seems.

It began to take place in the 1950s, part I would suppose of the reaction to godless communism which led to the change in the Pledge of Allegiance and our currency to include reference to God.  It also led to the rise of Senator Joseph McCarthy, I would think, but the Senator isn't my concern in this post.

In any case, the NPB is in the news, not merely because it will be taking place but because this time, prayers will be made and breakfast eaten by two different groups, one being the gathering held by the group called "The Family" and one held by a newly created foundation.   The Family is apparently an organization of Christians, the nature and purpose of which is obscure, which has run or sponsored it in the past.  The foundation was formed because, it seems, nobody knows much about The Family, or at least cannot explain its function or involvement in the event.  Some are concerned about this fact.  It is a reasonable concern.

Although as far as I am aware there was no Last Breakfast, it's not uncommon for churches throughout this Glorious Union to hold prayer breakfasts, as some browsing will confirm.  Sometimes there are prayer breakfasts touted as being for men; sometimes for women.  One assumes prayers are said at the beginning and perhaps at the end of the meal, but one suspects that they are, like most sponsored social gatherings here, opportunities for networking of various kinds.

For my part, I don't think the God of the vast universe listens to or responds to prayers of any kind made by anyone on our tiny planet.  When we believe there is such a God, it strikes me we have a very small, limited, being in mind--one with suspiciously human predilections and preferences.  A "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" kind of God.  Nonetheless, I'm normally unconcerned by prayers. As far as I'm concerned, people may pray and eat as often and as much as they like, at any time of day.  They may hold prayer snacks or attend happy prayer hours.   However, I may be concerned by what the prayer solicits, not because the wish expressed in the prayer may be granted by God, but because human agency may grant it.

The NPB is concerning not because prayers are said (presumably), but because of the opportunity it presents to influence national politicians and functionaries in favor of particular religious beliefs or in favor of interests which are couched in religious form and language, and promote the agenda of self-identified believers in a particular religion.  I think it serves merely as yet another opportunity to trade favors, line pockets and, in short, govern in relative secrecy.  There are many such opportunities available for that purpose which aren't so peculiarly religious at least in form if not substance, and it seems ill-conceived to hold meals of this kind in any Republic which purports to treat all religions equally, without preference.  In this country, those religious folk who foster or attend such a gathering will be primarily Christian.

The celebration of religion through eating (communally) has a long history.  Above is a picture found in Mithraeums, where follows of Mithras worshipped for several centuries during the history of the Roman Empire.  Mithras is shown eating a meal with Sol Invictus.  The meal is being served by initiates in the Mithras cult.  The bull slain by Mithas is the "table" at which the meal is served and eaten.  The meal consists, at least in part, of small pieces of bread marked with a cross.  This was a cause of concern to some of the early Church Fathers, who maintained that demons, knowing that the Eucharist would be celebrated by Christians, created the Mithraic ritual so the Christian one to come would seem a mere imitation.

But what I mean to point out is that the social, communal event of a meal or feast held by a group provides a very effective way to promote particular views and positions, some of which are traditionally religious in nature.  They have been used by us for that purpose for a very long time.  That, I suggest, is the purpose of the NPB. Similarities to the Last Supper are avoided by the device of the breakfast--that would be too blatant an association with Christianity.  But a Christian agenda is being promoted nonetheless.   

Never There In the First Place

 

If you give it some thought, Christmas is a holiday which invites skepticism regarding Christianity.  It may in that sense almost be called "Anti-Christian."   This isn't merely because it's become almost entirely about making and spending money, about marketing, about sanctimony and relentless religious posturing.  Rather, it's because there's nothing about it that has anything to do with a historical Jesus, and everything about it is either manufactured or based in pagan myth and tradition.  It's a great Christian holiday which isn't in the least bit Christian in nature or origin, but Christians have chosen it and describe it as Christian, and insist that it be treated as peculiarly Christian. 

The Christian story of Christmas, to the extent that it purports to be accurate, clearly isn't accurate.  The trappings of Christmas--the tree, the Yule Log, the exchange of gifts, mistletoe, etc.--don't have their origins in Christianity.  Why, then, do Christians insist on it, and make it their greatest holy day?

We begin with what should be known by all, but perhaps is not.  That is, that there is no evidence, no report, and indeed nothing, indicating or even suggesting Jesus was born on what we now call December 25th.  The Roman Church began celebrating it as the day of the birth of Christ in 336 C.E., more than 300 years after the event is said to have taken place.   There is considerable evidence, however, that it was the date on which the birth of pagan gods such as Sol Invictus and Mithras was celebrated, and was within the season during which the great pagan celebration of Saturnalia took place, which involved gift-giving and parties, and featured roleplay in which slaves and servants become masters and their masters slaves and servants.

As might be expected of a day celebrating the birth of sun gods such as the Roman ones I referred to, it occurs very near to the winter solstice.  The winter solstice was celebrated by pagans of all kinds long before Jesus is said to have been born, as the time at which the sun ceases "dying" and is in effect "born" and the days slowly become longer and brighter.

Then there is the story of Christmas described in the Gospels.  According to that of Luke, Jesus was born during the reign of Augustus, in Bethlehem, because of the requirements of a census taken while Quirinius (Publius Sulpicius Quirinius) was governor of the Roman Province of Syria, which included Palestine.  The census supposedly required all to travel to the town of their birth, to be counted.  According to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great.

The early Christians seemingly kept poor records, but the Romans were great record-keepers.  The census of Quirinius was taken several years after the death of Herod.  No Roman census required everyone to travel to their ancestral home--a requirement which would likely have caused chaos in travel and administration, and would have been a dramatically large burden to all concerned.  Why, then, does Christianity claim that Jesus of Nazareth was born in Bethlehem?  Because it was the City of David, and Jesus through his father Joseph was claimed to be a descendent of David and the messiah was supposed to be born there.  

Then there is the manger problem.  The nativity scene or setting we're familiar with involves a stable, a manger, various animals and shepherds.  Early Christians maintained Jesus was born in a cave, though.  That would seem to be the case according to the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, where the place at which Jesus was born is depicted by the star in the photograph at the head of this post, and is referred to as a "grotto."  That place along with other locations and objects important to Christianity was discovered by Helena, the very busy and industrious mother of the Emperor Constantine, who roamed the Holy Land in search of such things, and is considered a saint according to the Catholic Church.

We have heard, and still hear, many urge that we should "keep Christ in Christmas."  But it can fairly be maintained that he was never there in the first place, and isn't there much now.  Instead, he's been inserted, in a rather shameless, brazen fashion, into an ancient time of celebration made significant for reasons having nothing to do with him or Christianity.

It's harmless enough, of course, to create a holiday and designate it as a time for special celebration of a particular person or event.  This is done with some frequency, in fact.  If that is what Christians have done in creating Christmas, who could complain?  But a religion such as Christianity cannot be doubted, and that is especially the case where holy books are concerned. 

If we give it some more thought, perhaps in fact Christmas isn't Anti-Christian, but peculiarly Christian in the sense that it is contrived, a pretence, much like being a Christian is, today, and likely has been forever, sadly.  If to be Christian is to follow the teachings of Jesus, Christians are mostly frauds.

We should by all means celebrate the Christmas season.  It's great fun, and always has been, since long before Christ and Christianity.  The winter solstice has always been significant as well.  But one with think the pious and self-righteous should have some decency, and restrain themselves from insisting we stop treating the Christmas season as being solely something which it clearly is not. 

Intolerance, Exclusivity and the Heirs of Abraham

A thread on a forum I frequent has motivated me to wonder something about the so-called Abrahamic religions, i.e. those which look back to the patriarch Abraham as a founder, directly or indirectly.  What I wonder about them may strike some as disturbing or even blasphemous.  I wonder whether there is anything peculiarly good about them; whether, in other words, they in themselves contain or preach anything good, that hasn't as it were been borrowed or assimilated in the course of their histories from elsewhere.

Above is a picture in stained glass, I think, depicting Abraham about to sacrifice his son in accordance with the will of his God.  I sometimes think of the God of the Old Testament as a kind of colossal, unsleeping cat, toying with his creation as a cat would a mouse.  A cat without a cat's usual charm and grace, though, and without its vast capacity to sleep, and doing no harm by doing so.  Whether urging the chosen people to destroy the Canaanites and take their land, laying waste to entire cities, flooding the world, or playing torturous games with Abraham and Job, he's perpetually doing something to us.  He seemingly made us to be the objects of his whims.

A particular belief in a particular God has been the cause of much violence and many wars, it's true.  But was it so, is it so, when one of the Abrahamic religions is not involved?  As far as I know, the pagans of the ancient Mediterranean didn't war against each other because one group worshipped Isis and one Mithras, for example.  Tolerance of religious beliefs was characteristic of the Greco-Roman world, except, of course, when it came to the Jews and Christians.

Greeks and Jews we know rioted against each other in Alexandria.  Roman suppression of the Jews in the two "Jewish wars" was ruthless.  The Roman state, periodically and with varying degrees of seriousness, persecuted Christians, but with nowhere near the seriousness depicted by Hollywood and others.  But violence against Jews and Christians was not motivated by the fact that they believed in Yahweh or Jesus as opposed to one or several of the pagan gods.  It was motivated by the fact that they believed themselves to be exclusively in possession of that which is right and good by virtue of the fact they worshipped their particular god and refused to recognize as right and good and indeed despised anything they did not think right and good--including pagans, the Roman state, and pagan institutions.  They were considered anti-social, as they were against pagan society and culture.  They appeared to subvert society, traditional religion and the government.

Jews and Christians were exclusive, sometimes militantly so, and intolerant.  Once Rome became a Christian Empire, it persecuted pagans far more relentlessly and effectively that the pagan empire persecuted Christians.  Islam, once founded, was similarly exclusive and intolerant, and engaged in great conquests in the name of its God.  Christianity was an imperial force as well.  All over the world, people were "saved" by being made Christian.

There are works of art inspired by religion, and they can be said to be goods peculiar to particular religious beliefs.  What of wisdom or ethics can be said to have resulted only by virtue of the Abrahamic religions, however? 

I would say nothing, not really.  All that was or could be said on those topics was said before Christianity or Islam existed, and developed independent of Judaism, primarily due to the ancient Greeks.  If one discounts unsubstantiated claims such as Plato or Solon got lessons from Moses, there's nothing to indicate the Greeks were influenced by Judaism in any significant respect.  That Christianity borrowed extensively from pagan philosophy is clear.

It's often claimed that Christianity brought with it the idea of love, something said to be absent from paganism.  Readers of Plato's Symposium might find that surprising.  But Christian love has much more often than not merely been given lip service.  If there was such a teaching, it's been ignored as a practical matter.  And arguably, the love touted by Christianity has never been capable of realization.  One simply does not love everyone.  Respect and dignity were accorded to all by the pagan philosophers; a much more achievable goal.

Well, that's what wondering can do.  But what can be expected from religions which hold themselves out to be the only way to God, the only way to worship God, but conflict in the name of God until all believe the same?

Great Pan Is Not Dead



According to Plutarch "Great Pan is Dead!" are the words uttered in a loud voice (sometimes called a "divine voice") heard by the sailor Thamus on his way--by boat one would assume--to Italy while travelling there during the reign of the Emperor Tiberius.  The extremely fat and inordinately glib Christian apologist G.K. Chesterton, who could be a witty fellow though over-fond of quips, thought Pan to be the only pagan god said to have died, and thought his death somehow connected with the death, or perhaps the birth, of Jesus.

I'm not sure if it mattered all that much for Chesterton's purposes, but I suspect the birth of Jesus somehow precipitated the death of Pan.  I think a case can be made that it did, though it took quite some time to do Pan in.  This had something to do with the birth of theology, according to Chesterton.

Others, such as Robert Graves, thought the story the result of some confusion, and believed the great shout had been mistranslated over time or mistold.  He believed there was no Thamus, but there was a Tammuz, another pagan god who died and whose death was remembered through a ritual which was being performed and was overheard by...someone.

It does seem jolly old Chesterton was mistaken about pagan gods and their birth or death, for various of them did die or their consorts did, and it was their death and resurrection which became the subject of the mystery religions such as that of Mithras, and Isis, and the Great Mother.

Pan was the god of nature, of wild nature that is; but also of shepherds and flocks, and music through the rustic flute.  He's often confused with satyrs, due to the fact that he had the horns, hoofs and hindquarters of a goat.  And it must be said he was inclined to physical pleasures as well, which of course rendered him abhorrent to many Christians.  As a nature god he wasn't worshipped in temples but in caves or wooded groves.  He was born in Arcadia.  His Roman counterpart was Faunus.

But if he died so long ago, he seems to keep coming back, Chesterton and, perhaps, Jesus notwithstanding.  He came back during the Renaissance, as did so much else pagan in spirit.  He was a favorite of the 19th century Romantics, and is even now worshipped by neo-pagans.  He is part of the great inheritance of Western culture that is pagan antiquity, and like it will not die much as some wish it would, who are blithely ignorant of the debt owed to it even, and perhaps especially, by Christianity. 

I know little of Wiccan or neo-paganism generally.  I'm not inclined to engage in rituals or ceremonies which are meant to revive or mimic ancient religious worship.  Nor am I inclined to worship any of the old gods.  But I am pleased that there seems to be a revival in respect for and reverence towards nature--by which I mean the physical world, the universe.  We've believed ourselves to be nature's master for far too long, and are paying the price of the monstrous credo we've accepted here in the West; that we like the God of the Abrahamic religions are apart from nature rather than a part of it.  We will pay more for our self-regard. 

Stoicism also keeps coming back, as the modern resurgence of that philosophy makes clear.  But it's always been around in one sense or another, and it's injunction to "live according to nature" is one that will be accepted it's to be hoped.  It may have to be accepted if we're to survive.

But if I were to worship any of the old gods, I think Pan would be one of them, along with Apollo and Hermes, the one the god of reason, the other the bright intelligence of the universe.  And Pan the god of the physical nature of all living things.

The Christmas Conglomerate

Let's escape, however briefly, the vast Fun house of our national politics and the distorted images of human beings (the candidates) lurking there for our amusement and dismay.  It's time, once again, to consider--or at least appear to consider, or say we're considering--the True Meaning of Christmas.

Just what the True Meaning of Christmas (TMOC)  is may be a subject of some dispute.  Generally, though, it's thought to have something to do with Jesus Christ, or Christianity in one form of another, and may actually be about them for that hour or two many of us attend church services.  They of course are also subjects of some dispute, and have been from the beginning.

So the popular claim we should "put Christ back in Christmas" provides little guidance to those seeking or saying they seek TMOC.  It's unclear, though, that those who demand Christ be "put back" believe they require any guidance in this respect, and it's likely they're unaware of any dispute regarding Christ or Christianity.  Arius, Pelagius and the many others disputants are probably unknown to most of them.  We may be reasonably certain they've heard of Martin Luther and John Calvin, however, and some even of John Wesley.

Also generally, TMOC is thought to have something to do with peace on earth and good will towards men, possibly even by those who don't think Christ needs to be put back in Christmas or anywhere else.  In any case, TMOC is normally believed to have little if anything to do with Santa Claus or anything commercial, as such things, though they may have meaning in themselves and indeed are prevalent, even omnipresent, at this time, nonetheless lack True Meaning.  In fact, TMOC is said to be significant because it has nothing to do with them.

But it's hard to ignore what has become increasingly clear regarding Christmas, its celebration, iconography and mythology.  That is, that we humans have been involved in celebrating this time of the year for countless thousands of years and were doing so long before Jesus or even Abraham were heard of, and that those celebrations had much in common with what takes place now.  Christmas is a relatively new development with very old features.  Christmas is in fact a relatively new way of characterizing a very old tradition and celebration; one that was old when Christianity came to exist.

It's doubtful anyone living believes Jesus was actually born on December 25.  It was decided his birth should be celebrated on that date long after he died.  The early Christians were diligent, even ruthless, in their suppression of pagan beliefs, but could do nothing to alter the arrival of the winter solstice or the fact that it had been celebrated for many, many years as the time at which Light inexorably began its triumph over Dark, and the Sun born or reborn.

The winter solstice had long been considered for obvious reasons a time for celebration of Helios, Sol Invictus, Mithras and other gods associated with the Sun.  These gods were worshiped during Christianity's development in the Roman Empire; other Sun gods were worshiped outside the Empire, and before it.

Early Christian leaders and thinkers were no doubt aware of the fact that Mithras was claimed to have been born on December 25th, in the presence of shepherds and three kings.  The Church Fathers were disturbed by many things about the worship of Mithras, which included a sacred communal meal of bread and wine, the bread marked with crosses according to certain depictions of the ritual.  They were also no doubt aware the winter solstice was a time for gift-giving, for the Saturnalia in fact, when the roles of master and slave were reversed.

I'm not one who thinks that but for an accident or two, Mithras would have become universally worshipped in the West rather than Christ.  Males only were allowed to become initiates to his mysteries, and it seems clear women played a significant role in Christianity's triumph over its rivals.  I don't think we would be setting up figurines of Mithras and his bull, Helios, Cautes and Cautopates instead of manger scenes if things went a bit differently 1700 years ago.

So I doubt December 25 was chosen as the day of Christ's birth solely because it was the birthday of Mithras.  But as the winter solstice was a time for universal celebration in the society in which Christianity was born and, as it were, raised, it made considerable sense for the early Church to choose it as the time at which Christ's birth would be celebrated.  It was plainly a major social and cultural event already, with significant religious overtones; it was ideal for the purpose.  And like Christianity itself, Christmas took on aspects of pagan worship and culture.  In a sense, Christ was put into Christmas, or Christmas-time, long ago.  There was a time when Christ was new to the party; a latecomer.  The Christmas we know is a conglomerate, as is Christianity.

Helios/Sol Invictus/Mithras/Jesus and their predecessor gods have been part of what we call Christmas-time for thousands of years.  The religious tone of the time is well-established and unquestionable.  More interesting is the association of Christmas-time with "peace on earth, good will towards men."

That phrase is claimed to have been part of a statement made by angels to duly astonished shepherds during the Annunciation; the announcement of the birth of Jesus.  Here there is also a dispute, however.  The dispute is over the correct translation of what was said by the angels from the original Greek of the New Testament.  Pagans of the time thought the Gospels to have been written by persons whose Greek was very bad, but I don't know if that was truly the case or whether it would make a difference in this case.

It seems that more ancient versions of the text are believed by scholars to be more appropriately translated as "peace to those men with whom God/Jesus is pleased" or words to that effect.  Peace, therefore, is bestowed on those who have the good will of God/Jesus.  This is a different sentiment of the season than that with which most of us are familiar.  If we're to have good will towards men (instead of God having that good will), it may be we shouldn't have good will towards all men at Christmas-time, but only to those men who please God.  As the statement is made in connection with the birth of Jesus, it would seem those who please God are those who believe in Jesus as God.

If this is correct, TMOC wouldn't be good will, friendliness towards, or tolerance of all, but only of Christians.  A sobering thought for those of us who have believed good will was to be extended to all at this time of the year, but one that may make more sense given the context in which the Gospel was written.  Is this in fact the True Meaning?

Merry Christmas to all.  Perhaps.  But whether the good will we're supposed to feel at this time of the year is towards all or only a portion of humanity, we may be grateful, as the great Tom Lehrer sang regarding National Brotherhood Week, that Christmas-time doesn't last all year.

In our Stars

One has to wonder why, despite our reliance on science and our enlightened state, so many of us take astrology seriously.  You would think that its day is long gone, but it isn't.  One can see it in any  newspaper (even the ones which still are made up of paper), and be enthralled by an Eastern version of it in many Chinese restaurants.  Curiously, it seems that whether we are, e.g., a Cancer or a Horse, many fine qualities are attributed to us as being a part of our nature.  Our signs, or years, at birth never seem to ordain that we're idiots, or twisted, or fanatic, or hideous.

We all know the story of the Reagans, or at least Nancy Reagan's, belief in and reliance on astrology when considering the future.  It's reminiscent of Tiberius' reliance on it especially during his time in Capri.  Presumably, neither Ronald or Nancy would have hurled their astrologers off a cliff in the event of a bad "reading" however.

It must be said that astrology played a part in the birth of modern science, particularly astronomy, much as alchemy may be said to have played a part in the birth of modern chemistry.  Since the time of the ancient Chaldeans, at least, some of us have been busy identifying and plotting the courses of heavenly bodies.  These observations were reputedly quite precise; indeed, it appears that a good deal of mathematical information and knowledge were employed by those who read the stars and what else can be seen from the Earth.  The problems with astrology resulted from inferences made from the mathematics based on unfounded assumptions regarding the nature and influence of the stars and planets.

The cult of Mithras in the Roman Empire is an example of the influence of astrology on religion.  We know little of the ritual or liturgy of that cult, but we know from the mithraeums themselves that astrology was involved as the signs of the Zodiac are frequently on display, along with Mithras and his bull and the torch-bearing twins, Cautes and Cautopates.

Why, though, did we (and do we) associate the stars and the planets with our character and fate?    Were the predictable and regular movements of these objects in the sky suggestive of the order of the universe, the laws of the universe?  Being such, was it inferred that we were similarly ordered, or that the order in the sky necessarily governed the creatures of the Earth? 

It's difficult to contend that astrology was or is a means to control our destinies as that is plainly not the case.  Astrology seems to be an example of deterministic thinking; that is to say that we are controlled and unable to control ourselves.  It would then seem more plausible that astrology was used as a means by which to understand our destinies, to know the future which has already been ordained. 

It can't be the case that astrology was looked to as explaining, or at least predicting, what the gods had in store for us as we thought of them as gods themselves.  Particularly in ancient Greece and Rome, the gods were notoriously unpredictable and some of them easily offended or aroused to action.  It would be difficult in that case to attribute to them neatly ordered conduct such as that displayed in the sky.

The Romans, of course, adopted the apparently Etruscan practice of determining the future from the entrails of animals.  Thus the liver of an ox or other creature took the place of the stars as indicating the what was in store.  This seems even more unlikely than accepting the movement of the stars as governing us and our fate. 

Undoubtedly it was hoped that the future could be known and predicted and so it's nor surprising that we sought for (and found) ways by which that could be done.  Priests who knew that way were not required to be of high moral character themselves, as they were simply discerning what was written for us through a consideration of what took place in nature, not through a vision or grace bestowed, or special favor of the gods.  Astrology represented a kind of learning or system rather than a knowledge granted for good conduct.  It was not an award by the gods, it was something that could be taught.

We can "forgive" the ancients for their ignorance, but modern practice of astrology or consultation with astrologers is mystifying.  As it must be the case that most of us are now aware of the vastness of the universe and our planet's tiny part it in, it should be extremely difficult to believe that the stars and planets in their movements serve to fashion our nature and reveal our fates.  But we all still want to know the future, and it may be said that praying for such knowledge or awaiting a revelation of it by some beneficent deity is not all that different from seeking it in the movements of the stars and planets.    If we have no problem accepting the former, there is no problem with accepting the latter.

Acceptance, however, is not something that can be associated with astrology.  If we were blithely willing to accept whatever happens we'd have no need to know what is going to happen.  Astrology and certain kinds of religion may therefore be considered efforts on our part to disturb ourselves with things not in our control, a cardinal error for a Stoic.  I don't recall whether Epictetus, Seneca or Marcus Aurelius dealt with this practice, but will review their work to find out.

Angry Gods

The man we know as Lucius Apuleius wrote the only entire Latin novel to survive the fall of the ancient word, The Golden Ass also known as the Metamorphoses (the Satyricon of Petronius has come to us with sections missing).  It is perhaps the first picaresque novel, its hero suffering through all kinds of discomforts at the hands of many, both as a human and while transformed into an ass. 

At the end of the novel, however, there is a seemingly very serious and interesting description of ceremonial in the worship of Isis and her consort, Osiris, as that goddess was worshipped in Roman times.  Apuleius is initiated into the mysteries of Isis, the Queen of Heaven, Regina Caeli.  Also included in the novel is a description of ecstatic dancing and blood-letting (flagellation) by eunuchs in the worship of what is referred to as "the Syrian goddess."  I assume that is Cybele, given the role played by eunuchs in her worship.

Older Catholics like me will find the title Regina Caeli familiar as one given to the Virgin Mary, which could be heard in a hymn to her sung back in the old days of the Latin mass and Novenas.  As for flagellation, and even ecstatic dancing, Christianity has had its proponents of both.  These are reminders of the debt (if one can call it that) owed by Christianity to the ancient pagan past.

But there is one sense at least in which Christianity differs from the religion of the ancient pagans (amusingly called Gentiles by Christians).  It isn't monotheism either, assuming "monotheism" is properly used to describe the three gods in one said to be the Christian God.  There were monotheists among the pagans, or at least those who could claim to be monotheists as appropriately as could Christians of the time.  It is instead Christianity's pretension to being the only true religion, the one path to heaven, the sole truth; that is to say its exclusivity, and its often violent intolerance of that which is not Christian. 

Christianity isn't alone in this remarkable conceit of course.  So are the other major religions said to derive from Abraham, Judaism and Islam, which have been equally exclusive, equally intolerant.  Their gods are angry, jealous gods; we are sinners in their hands, though some sinners are worse than others.  I know little of the religions of the East, but it seems to me that they have at least been less intolerant than those of the West.

The pagan religions from which Christianity borrowed so much had no such pretensions in the sense that they were generally not exclusive and not intolerant.  One could, and did, worship many gods.  One could be admitted to the mysteries of Isis and those of Mithras.  Admission to the Eleusinian mysteries was open to all, after they ceased being purely local; several emperors were initiates.

Religion was essential to Greco-Roman society; there were temples everywhere, rituals were to be performed with great frequency.  The worship of some gods or goddesses was considered silly or barbaric or contrary to social order from time to time.  Christianity was indeed thought to be anti-social and was persecuted because its followers refused to participate in the ceremonies believed to be essential to the welfare of the Roman state and its people.  However there was no insistence that only one god should be worshipped, no claims that worshipping other gods was evil, no crusades as in Christianity, no religious conquests as took place as was the case in Islam and Christianity, no Inquisitions.

It's interesting to consider just how it came about that the Abrahamic religions became exclusive and intolerant.  If it wasn't the influence of pagan religion, what could it be?  Judaism was certainly exclusive and intolerant, and there was a long tradition that Jews alone were the favorites of the one God.  There were occassions as in Alexandria where fights would break out between Jews and pagans--riots, really.  There was frequent tension, but nothing quite like the virtual warfare with pagans and heretics resulting from the triumph of Christianity and later Islam.  Perhaps the Jews' belief in their own sanctity and righteousness didn't result in the extermination of other religions and beliefs and those who followed or held them on a larger scale because they never obtained political and military power as did Christianity and Islam. 

It's likely that such intolerance derives from the belief not just in a single God but in a single truth, a single way of living that is the only way.  We see the same intolerance in Nazism, fascism, Stalinism, Maoism.  This intolerance seems to be associated with a figure divine or semi-divine who issues commandments to be followed or interprets those given by some other figure.

Sheep and Shepard seems an all too accurate analogy for humans and our relationship to power of all kinds.  But it's curious that this kind of religious absolutism didn't develop during the time of polytheism.  There was political absolutism enough in the Roman Empire, of course, but the emperors didn't begin to demand the closing of the temples and the schools of philosophy and the acceptance of a particular version of Christianity until the reign of Theodosius (he also banned the Olympic games).

An all-powerful, all-knowing god who is jealous, demanding and angry.  What does this reveal about those who worship such a being and were induced to do so at the end of antiquity, and the state of the culture and society which saw the triumph of such a religion?