Customer Reviews

God Against The Gods: The History of the War Between Monotheism and Polytheism

5 star:		(17)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

This book was as enjoyable to read as it was eye-opening. Because of 9-11, we are well familiar with the faction in Islam that believes in killing the so-called infidels. What I did not know was how deeply entrenched in killing non-believers that the original Jews and Christians were, as well; often under the supposed encouragement and blessing of The One and Only True God.

The point of God against the Gods is not to condemn either Christianity or Judaism. Far from it. Rather, it makes the compelling point that the victory of monotheism over paganism in many respects may not have been a good thing; largely because of the tendency toward intolerance and persecution that the belief--my God is the One and Only True God--tends to breed in the minds of believers. This is a novel, provocative point to ears that have grown so used to hearing that monotheism is superior to paganism, and that paganism is nothing more than a superstitious hodgepodge whose defeat was a blessing to the world. But the author makes his point in a calm, reasoned, and balanced manner. In many respects, I found myself persauded. However, he certainly does not claim that paganism is totally innocent in world history either. It has its share of dark moments, too.

This book is written in an easy, almost conversational manner, which allows it to provide a lot of fascinating history in a very interesting manner. I thoroughly enjoyed every page. At the same time, I also acquired insights and facts about the history of the three major monotheistic religions and paganism that I was not aware of before. The chapters on the Roman Empire and its Caesars, especially Julian, were fascinating. God against the Gods is highly recommended.

I had to write after reading the negative reviews below. It always amazes me how people can claim to have read a book, and then describe something that bears only a passing resemblence to the actual text.

Seth, for example, contends GAtG only covers the period of Constantnie to Julian. Since Constantine doesn't show up until page 119, I'm assuming he skipped ahead to the parts he wanted to complain about.

The book actually begins in ancient Egypt, when a Pharoh tried to remove the polythestic gods of his culture and set up the first monotheistic religion. It then moves on to Moses and the other Jewish prophets and their attempts to keep the sometimes straying Jews (golden calf, anyone), in line with the monothestic faith they wanted all their tribe to follow. It then discusses the waxing and waning fortunes of the Jewish faithful (and not so faithful) as their interactions with Romans (and polytheism), shift and move back and forth between rigorist monotheism and comprimise with the pagan, polythesitic culture of the classical age.

While all this is happening, Christianity is introduced, and we get the first case of a monotheistic faith battling a monotheistic faith -- Jews following Jesus against Jews who don't.

And so on, as Christianity spreds into Rome, but refuses to obey the laws of respecting ALL Gods -- which was considered a civic obligation of the Roman citizen. Constanine shows up after all this is clearly laid out.

Seth claim that this is a book "against" Christianity reflect his bias -- Kirsch clearly has it in for Monotheism in general, and that includes Judaism, and Islam. He admits up front that if there's going to be religion, he admires the accepting polytheism of classical Roma and Greece. Monotheistic faiths, he contends, don't just say someone who dosn't worship the right god is wrong, but that he must be "corrected" into believing the right way to believe, because all other beliefs are wrong. If that means torture or death on the path to redemption, so be it.

(By the way, Kirsch points out the ways the polytheists persecuted Christians and Jews. He suggests, though, that the persecutions weren't as horrific as Christian and Jewish historians wrote, and cites other historians as agreeing with him.)

Meawhile, Eric suggests that "secularist liberals will see it as a confirmation that religion is inherently evil and stultifying; the religious conservatives will see it as a distorted attack on the remaining source of morality in the modern world."

Um, no. I'm a liberal Catholic, and I found the book fascinating. I'm particularly fascinated by the way I can see a parallel between religion in the United States and the polytheism of classical Rome and Greece. These days, people in this country move between denominations, switch faiths as their desires and needs dictate, or add Yoga, crystals and horoscopoe readings even as they go to Church, Temple or a Mosque every week. I'd offer that this flexibility (as opposed to living under Islamic hardliners), is a blessing, and something I hadn't considered as an echo of ancient practices (a new polytheism), until I read this book.

It gave me a new way of looking at the world around me. Could I give it less than 4 stars? Nope.

Paganism, Kirsch reminds us, has been far distorted beyond its original meaning. Even our common dictionaries use only pejorative words to describe it - "heathen", "hedonist", "non-religious". Kirsch wants us to understand that "no self-respecting pagan" would apply such definitions to his own forms of worship. "Paganism" has been the subject of harsh propaganda by the monotheistic "faithful". These agents of repression viewed worship of deities other than the "One True God" as just cause for the vilest forms of curtailment, cruelty and murder. Although we've suffered many centuries of Christian propaganda against the "pagans", Kirsch is able to sift through the evidence to provide a more reasonable picture. The pagan world had its blemishes, but in his view, there's no match for the destructive record of Christianity.

Kirsch's opening subject may surprise most readers. He examines the effort of Egyptian pharaoh Akehnaton to establish a monotheistic faith. Akhenaton's project was to replace the pantheon of Egyptian deities with a "One True God" in the figure of Aton, the sun god. Given Egypt's environment, it was a logical choice. In true monotheistic style, one that would be followed by other monotheists, Akhenaton destroyed the images, references and temples of the previous corps of deities. Naturally, there was resentment among the populace, but a pharaoh's power was too absolute for a successful counterrevolution. Although unsuccessful in establishing a lasting monotheistic empire, Akehnaton is recorded as the first ruler to make the attempt.

The next attempt was the half-hearted endeavour by the Roman Emperor Constantine. Kirsch closely examines the myth of Constantine's "vision" at the battle of Milvian bridge and the emperor's actions after the victory. Remaining unbaptised until shortly before his death, Constantine is shown as using Christianity to enhance his own power as a ruler. Skillfully playing many factions like political pawns, Constantine was able to keep himself aloof from religious strife. As Kirsch notes, more Christians killed each other than were lost during the "Persecutions" of previous emperors. Christianity bogged down over the "essence" of its founder. The "important dipthong" of Edward Gibbon became the basis for innumerable slaughters, burnings and suppression of dissenting views. It was a portent with continuous repetition. Adolph Hitler's motto of "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuerher" was presaged by Constatine's "One God, One Empire, One Emperor".

Almost in response to Constatine's vague conversion was the career of his nephew, Julian. Kirsch explains how Julian, a survival of the slayings of his relatives as Christian pretender challenged his Christian rivals, was raised in exile. In his training, he encountered classical philosophers. With the "heresy wars" besetting his times, Julian looked with longing at the domestic peace of paganism. The empire might have contended with competitors or "barbarians", but its population remained peaceful over religious issues. Kirsch shows how Julian developed a longing for those days of toleration in the midst of sectarian strife.

At his accession to "the purple", Julian attempted the reverse of Akhenaton's career. Instead of monotheism and "One True God", Julian attempted to restore the traditional deities and reduce the violence of Christian orthodox and "heretical" contenders. It was a formidable task. Kirsch notes that by the time of Juilan's accession there were over 150 sects professing to know "the truth". Such absolutism was unlikely to lead to a reign of tolerance. Julian's only hope was to show that paganism could restore peace, but the Christians were launched on an all-or-nothing struggle for dominance. Regrettably, Julian's restoration of rationality was cut short by a Persian spear in his liver. Inevitably, Kirsch ponders what the history of Europe might have been if Julian had been granted the three decades allotted to Constantine by the Fates. What Kirsch cannot do is more than hope that books such as his might someday lead to the restoration of reason. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

This book was certainly enlightening. I felt the author provided a genuine and fascinating grasp on a subject I constantly long to know more about: the schism between the Pagan and the Christian world view. The author's pace is perfect, it flows, the story begins in Egypt and ends with an epilogue about our own modern world. We are indebted to the Pagan world for the liberal viewpoints we cherish but there are aspects of Christianity that permeate our culture and offer guidance.

It continually amazes me how often human beings have murdered and maimed for the sake of their 'faith'. How zealots darken the world by trying to order and destroy those who oppose their one-sided viewpoints. I believe Christian tenets offer us guidance as much as Paganism offers us self-exploration. Sadly, the politics of man continually interrupt the progress of goodness.

An excellent read for those who want insight into a vast study. The reader will learn about Judaic as well as Christian martyrdom, the rise of Constantine the Great, about the Emperor Julian and his longing to re-establish paganism in the dying days of the Roman Empire. For those who are a little shaky with their ancient history, it provides some interesting background on the religious cults of the Greeks and Romans.

For the history buffs... definitely and for those passionate about trying to understand man's inhumanity to man.

What a good book. This is the way history should be written, or at least one way history should be written. It is compulsively readable and full of fascinating information. And yet none of the facts are gratuitous or tedious, it all flows. You know that the author is so widely read that he is at liberty to choose exactly the right piece of information he needs at the time to make his point. And he makes many points very persuasively, including his overall argument that much was lost when monotheism vanquished polytheism. We are given ringside seats to an amazing spectacle that ranges from the birth of monotheism in the deserts of Egypt under Akhenaton to the ultimate victory of monotheism over polytheism, at least in the Western world, under the Christian Roman Emperor Theodosius. Along the way we are introduced and in many cases re-introduced to pagans and their practices, starting in a chapter entitled 'What Did Pagans Do?' After all, with history largely being written by the victors, pagans have hardly been given a fair shake over the years and it's a moot point to remember that luminaries such as Socrates, Plato, Sophocles, Euripides, Archimedes, Hippocrates, Euclid, and the inventors of Athenian democracy, etc., were indeed pagans in addition to being leading lights of Western civilization.
Not only did the victors in the battle between God and the gods get to write the history of the encounter, they also burned the writings and legacy of the vanquished. Hence we have the loss of the library at Alexandria to the torches of crazed Christian zealots. Although actions such as these led to the Dark ages, the author doesn't just single out Christians. He makes the case that religious freedom has always flourished under polytheism while religious intolerance, and all the stupidity and cruelty that goes with it, has always thrived under monotheism of any type, Pharaonic, Jewish, Christian, or Muslim. Indeed, after watching portions of a recent Scientology video on CNN featuring Tom Cruise (another true believer) it is clear that this new kind of monotheism (that by definition claims to be the only true way), cynically invented in the mid-20th Century, could easily become a very scary universal phenomenon if it were ever to be given access to the powers of the state. That is the warning implicit in this book -organized monotheistic true believers are dangerous -they can be murderous, cruel, destructive, and frequently insane -and if they get into positions of power in a monolithic government or society, look out.

This book is a landmark treatment of the transition - often violent and fraught with ideological prejudices - from polytheism to monotheism in the ancient world. It covers the brief advent of monotheism in Egypt, the rise of monotheistic western religion, and the battles - ideological, theological and cultural - fought between polytheists and monotheists over a 1500 year period.

Perhaps the most important aspect of this treatment is in how Kirsch shows that the advent of monotheism was not as noble and desirous a thing as its adherents would oft have us believe. He presents evidence suggesting that polytheistic religions were more tolerant than monotheism toward people who held different beliefs. He makes a good case for the ideals of religious liberty and open-mindedness that we have tried to value being more likely to have originated in polytheistic religions than in monotheistic contexts. He lays responsibility for much of the violence, hatred and fear experienced in the modern West at the feet of the three monotheistic religions that have dominated our cultural and religious histories in the West, and intimates that 9/11 - both the perpetrators of the terrorist attack and the general response of many Americans - are rooted in traditional, iconic stories of the Bible. While Kirsch is not arguing for a return to polytheism (polytheism has just as many problems as monotheism), he does provide the concerned reader with a great deal to think about.

The book should be read by anyone looking to understand the `dark side' of the three monotheistic religions that dominate the West.

I am so happy there are people like Jonathan Kirsch writing about religious history because there is a true history to all religions and it is hard for religious people to accept. When you study the beginings of religion you quickly realize that it's more about humanity than God or gods. And when you get down to it the only difference between 'God' and 'Gods' is an "S". Mr. Kirsch has done alot of hard research and developement for this book and he should be commended highly for it. Thank-you Mr. Kirsch. Randy

As the author said in his book, "heresy" was unheard of amongst Pagans. As soon as Pagans showed tolerance after Domitian the Christians went after each other for their many psychotic and bamboozling "heresies" amongst themselves. Pure nutjobery at it's best. Later, after cleaning up their movement, to go after "devils" and "false Gods" of the Pagans. Hence the Dark Ages.

Unfortunately, for civilization, Christians came upon the scene at the right time and at the right place (Rome) and with enough of their chutzpah and arrogance were able to usurp the established order. This all to our detriment, of course. The BAD GUYS do win, unfortunately.

Now look at the Christian fundie psychopaths today with their endless clamouring for war in the Mid-East and thus they are responsible - in no small way - of sinking the US economy (I'm sure many of the avaricious greedy slime on Wall Street are both "devout" and "true" Xtians/Monotheists). Think ancient Rome when you think of them. Dark Ages anyone? Impossible? So thought the Romans who ruled for centuries only to become a backwater not much later.

Moral of the story: events, personages (Constantine) and situations can all converge to change history for the better or worse.

It almost went back to better under Julian but died with him in Parthia.

Jonathan Kirsch, a scholar and excellent author, explores the "war" between the Judeo-Christian/Muslim monotheism and the polytheism it struggled and continues to struggle against. Kirsch takes the reader back through history to the origins of the struggle, introduces the key political figures that helped further each theory, and brings this struggle into the present by detailing ways that monotheism and polytheism continue to clash.

This is the second book by Kirsch that I have read and I must say he does not disappoint. The amount of research that Kirsch did for the writing of this book is evident on every page. Supporting his position and opinions with both ancient and modern text, Kirsch opens up and lays bare a power struggle over two thousand years old. If you are interested in religious theory and history, this is an excellent work and I highly recommend it.

This book inspired me to take a better look at paganism. When compared to the evils of monotheism paganism begins to look better and better. The pagans, in tolerating many gods and not just one, were, as the author points out, certainly less bigoted. The book is actually somewhat humorous - but not to monotheists I would imagine. The moral of the story seems to be that a world with a few more pagans and a number of less Christians, Jews and Muslim might be a step in a better direction. The author presents a truly convincing case. The book also presents a new light in historical insight. I doubt if I will ever look at religion quit the same ever again. Good book! Cynics, agnostics and the not so religiously inclined should love it. The want-to-believers will not be so contented.

Richard Edward Noble - The Hobo Philosopher - Author of:

Mein Kampf - An Analysis of Book One