• Hello everybody! We have tons of new awards for the new year that can be requested through our Awards System thanks to Antifa Lockhart! Some are limited-time awards so go claim them before they are gone forever...

    CLICK HERE FOR AWARDS

The power of God



REGISTER TO REMOVE ADS
Status
Not open for further replies.

Savior of Dawn

Leader of the Dai Gurren Brigade
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
2,299
Location
Santa Destroy
It recently occured to me the large difference between eastern and western gods. Western Gods (Well, usually God.) are immortal, all powerful, omniscient, ect. Yet eastern gods often get their power from their worshipers, or shrines (ect.) and can even die. As well, they don't have vast amounts of power, and usually only grant good luck and not these massive 'miracles' like parting seas.

So, what's your idea on how these gods have their basis of power? Were eastern gods so powerful because Europeans believed they could rule the world? (And they practically did for a while) Are asians simply more humble? Is this an instinct of prejudice and attempting to smother others with your own kind?

Overall, I'm just wondering on people's opinions of why these gods are so different, and what impact it has (if it does) on the world.
 

Square Ninja

"special recipe"
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
9,934
Website
www.classicgaming.com
So, what's your idea on how these gods have their basis of power? Were eastern gods so powerful because Europeans believed they could rule the world? (And they practically did for a while) Are asians simply more humble?

Asians? Humble?

Is this an instinct of prejudice and attempting to smother others with your own kind?

To a certain extent, actually. It's competition.
 

CK the Fat

New member
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
508
Age
34
Different regions have different values, and being isolated for many centuries, each region probably developed a fairly small and establish religion of its own. Only when empires began to rise is when the larger standards came to be, when kings and rulers merged old religions into new ones, along with the gods.

And then some gods were forged internationally, like the Greek/Egyptian gods that were created during Ptolomy's reign and all.
 

Hidden

A boy named Crow
Joined
May 4, 2005
Messages
1,615
Awards
6
Age
35
Location
A world that never was
Website
www.freewebs.com
This is actually a fascinating consideration, spanning so many viewpoints that only a few can be addressed at any given time without complicating the answers beyond use. I'll attempt to take a quick scan of it from three of these while I'm here.

----
One of the largest concerns that should be addressed is historical. First, what religions (and thereby gods) do we address when we compare West and East? Almost invariably it is Christianity and occasionally Judaism compared to the grouping of Daoist, Buddhist, and Hindu religions predominant with an occasional mention of Confucianism or certain early indigenous religions (most common among these being Shinto)*. Is this a valid comparison for the question?

*Daoism, having a rather inexpressible concept of divinity (if divinity you even translate it as) is going to have to be dropped; the same problem is found with Confucianism, which remains socially oriented more than anything.

Historically, no. Christianity is still, relatively speaking, new as a "Western" religion and had already developed a considerable degree of its perceptions on god prior to this shift; to the other side, Hinduism is connected to India so closely that considering it generally as "Eastern" is almost synecdoche, and Buddhism also came from this area and spread over an extended period of time (further complicating the matter, it has often been called an "atheistic religion" by Western scholars). Any comparison of these as exemplar products of either West or East is really inapplicable as such.

Now, one can proceed in two directions from this point: first, by working around the historical issue (while still taking it into account) and addressing the comparison of Abrahamic religions with a few predominant religions from India and other Eastern lands; second, by actually addressing what might be considered truly regional religions of the West and the East (Shinto still falls in with this problem).

I'll concentrate on the first approach, but find it worth the time to mention two things on the second: of the regional Western religions, most do feature multiple gods with very human characteristics, sometimes including a susceptibility to death, while a good number of Eastern religions do not have "gods" in the Western sense, but rather figures who we find it convenient to label as such for their similarities to Western counterparts. Still, the division between these groups is actually quite a deal less noticeable than between the later, larger religions. This is an issue of regional distinction, but one which is still somewhat addressed by later considerations on the main religions, and so I will continue.
----

A very closely related concern is that of the sociological influence on and of religion. Here we separate the first two of the Abrahamic religions, as Judaism established its religious and sociological aspects along precisely the same line, making them occasionally hard to distinguish, while Christianity has a very definite separation of these, the latter not really developing fully until it was adopted in the West.

One simple but plausible theory behind the single and all-powerful god of Judaism is simply this--the society needed one. By classical accounts, the Israelites did not have the easiest time and were not the toughest company among some periodically very warlike neighbors. The word "compensation" really portrays the wrong sense of it, but a powerful leadership figure of such status as to put all other gods to shame really would lend itself to a unity and purpose for these people--and it's quite likely it played a major role in the survival of the jewish people through their rather turbulent history.

Of course, with this background, a great deal of Christian thought on the matter is already set. However, in its adoption as a Western religion, certain sociological changes did occur. First, while starting off rather "grass-roots" style, it became accepted by the actions of the most powerful figures in Europe--the Roman emperors. Immediately, a sociological tie between Christianity and power is established, though it retains also its connections to the lower classes where it first spread. When the Roman Empire falls, the Church remains, and by the Middle Ages it is arguably the most powerful political force in Europe. The influence of this position on the religion should not be understated--we now have a religious tradition of absolute spiritual power paired with a secular aspect of absolute political power; the very role of religion has been radically changed from its original form; it has become a more or less independent power, but less as a religion than as a quasi-nationstate. Though its effective political power would later decline, its sociological status will not for quite some time--the tradition of power is indelibly imprinted on its very structure by Western society. Did this tradition eventually come around and, in turn, affect the course of early modern European thinking when the West rose from primitive obscurity to become arguably the leading power of the world? Undoubtedly.

Now we look to the sociological positions of Hinduism and Buddhism. Hinduism is almost identical to Judaism in this sense, with its religious and sociological development essentially inseparable; likewise, Buddhism's course is very similar to that which Christianity will take later, moving out of the region where it was born to be adopted and elevated much higher in foreign lands.

Hinduism's development of place in society is very close to Judaism's, but it holds its differences in focusing more on internal structure in the increasingly elaborate caste system and encompassing a far broader range of worship in its multiple avatars--the former is entirely sociological, the latter possibly influenced by the merging of the Aryan pantheon with remains of Harappan beliefs or even the simple diversity of the land they inhabited. The Indian people after the Aryan incursions did not specifically need or look for a single ruling god; at the same time, it is worth noting that the Hindu concept of godhead is not so far removed in overall status from the omnipotent god of Judaism, though its role is far different.

Buddhism, after being started across the castes (though often drawing the lower classes in larger numbers), enjoyed some time of political recognition under the Mauryan empire, but did not retain its power after the fall of that empire. It was also adopted by the Chinese court at times but never really held itself entirely separate of Confucian and Daoist traditions and so did not gain a lasting sociological foothold there. In Japan, where it arrived sometime considerably later, it actually did develop a position of some power within the society, but this power was broken by Japanese rulers after it had become too threatening, and so it never established a ruling position in society. As it basically "settled back" in Japanese culture, it reverted to its original position as simply a practice of life and lost most reflections of political influence; also merging with indigenous Shinto beliefs, it was not held as something above Japanese society. Buddhism's sociological connection to power never really was maintained in any land where it was introduced, primarily due to political differences in the lands and the fact that it was only very rarely in a position of essentially independent power.
----

I've really taken up more space in addressing the above two viewpoints on the question than I originally intended, so I'll be brief with this last point. Psychologically, religion provides one of the most fascinating insights into the human mind and experience. I'll limit myself to one question based on this:

What is it that people look for in a god?

Regardless of whether or not God created Man, it is Man who defines God--often enough, in his own image. The psychological backing for what gods are has to take into account the needs, wants, ideals, fears, et cetera of the people describing them; essentially, to encompass in some way the entire human experience, whether in one figure, none, or many--loving and terrible, great and humble, conquering and peaceable, mysterious and revealed. The psychological profile of a religion is the psychological profile of a people, though the connection is rarely a simple one.
----

Well, those are a few thoughts on the subject. None of it is really comprehensive to the point of fully exploring the relationship of religion and people, but it brings out a few of the general ideas that might be useful in further considering the matter. There are numerous other perspectives to approach the question from however, and the above is also open to debate by any.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top