Rating: 
Summary: Repeating a theme
Review: 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]
Rating:
Summary: Why politics and religion have NEVER mixed
Review: They were accused of sacrificing their infant children, engaging in orgies, and performing all sorts of evil acts. They hid behind closed doors in secret, engaging in what others thought were demonic rites. They were the early Christians.
It was interesting to see how classical pagans viewed the early Christians, and realize that the very things Christians were accused of are the same things Christians accuse pagans of today. Kirsch does a wonderful job of putting the battle of monotheism and polytheism in perspective, explaining not only what really happened, but why. One is left wondering what kind of a world we would live in today if Julian, Constantine's heir, had lived long enough to achieve his goals of restoring polytheism.
Kirsch does a fine job of exploring the political reasons for the rise of Christianity, and shows how Constantine used Christianity as just another tool in his arsenal to hold onto control. Modern Pagans would be well served to read this book and understand how classical pagans tried to embrace all beliefs without being judgemental. And modern monotheists would be well served to read this as a warning of the bloodshed that ensues when one so vehemently believes that one is right that they can justify killing over it.
Rating: 
Summary: A big let down
Review: This book bills itself as the "The History of the War Between Monotheism and Polytheism" But the truth is this book only covers the period of the Roman empire from Constantine to Julian. Even the cover illustration, the destruction of Jerusalem, is misleading as the event depicted took place 400 years prior to the event described in this book. In this end this book isn't really even a historical work but rather a polemic against religion.The history could have been interesting if not for the extreme bias of the writing. The argument in this book is that Christianity is inherently intolerant and that Paganism is tolerant and diverse. This claim is a lie and history proves it. The Pagans who took Jerusalem were terrible to the monotheists who lived their. First they expelled every monotheist from the city and then the Roman pagans killed 2/3 of the inhabitants. Why? Because the residents of Judea dared to practice a monotheistic religion. Then the pagan Romans persecuted the Christian, feeding them to the lions and making any non-roman religions illegal. Not so tolerant after-all. But none of that history is told in this book. Instead the book speaks of the 'comical persecution' of Christians that was 'more rhetoric' then by the sword. But the truth is he opposite. The Pagans were vicious to the monotheists and it was only the conversion of Constantine that ended the terrible horrific persecution of the Christians by Romans. In the end this book is a miserable disappointment. IN today's fundamentalist world where religion seems to play a large role in politics and terrorism, it would be wonderful to have an accurate thorough history of the monotheistic-polytheistic wars, unfortunately this text is not it. Seth J. Frantzman
Rating:
Summary: Fascinating History
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Well written, but it could have been so much more
Review: This is a pretty good book. It does say what the word "Pagan" means (it means "civilian" as opposed a monotheist soldier). It explains a little about what ancient Pagans and Paganism were. And the treatment of Paganism (by which I mean Polytheism) is reasonably sympathetic.
The latter part of the book is devoted to a reasonable history of the conflict between the Christians and the Pagans in the Roman Empire, ending with the horrible and tragic lynching of Hypatia in the fifth century A.D.
The reader is encouraged to tolerate Paganism and perhaps even see some of Paganism's advantages over monotheism. Paganism is more suited to our varied and fickle species, and Paganism is far less likely to succumb to certain forms of intolerance that have plagued monotheism (monotheism's god is shared by all, so there is an incentive for monotheists to force their rules on others). The author does speculate about how the world might have been a much better place had the Pagans not been so thoroughly crushed by the Christians.
Still, this book is written, to some extent, from a viewpoint of ethical monotheism that was wrong to fight Paganism, not from a viewpoint of Paganism. And it avoids some interesting issues, such as the Jewish response to Jezebel.
Nor do we see as much as I'd hoped about the theological battles between Paganism and Christianity. There just isn't much in this book that tells a reader why anyone would want to be a Pagan today, or why Paganism is theologically sounder than monotheism.
As I see it, Pagan Goddesses and Gods have three properties that the monotheist god lacks: reality, strength, and perfection. The monotheist god isn't bad at anything, so it can't really be good at anything. Just as there might be a perfect work horse, or a perfect race horse, or a perfect show horse, but never a "perfect horse," there can be a perfect Goddess of Wisdom but never a "perfect monotheist god." Being perfect at one thing means being bad at something else. Having only one god of everything is no different from having no god at all. Meanwhile, the real Goddesses and Gods are perfections of genuine and real attributes. Saint Anselm's ontological argument (perfection requires existence, given that nonexistence is an imperfection) does not apply to god, but it does apply to the Gods and Goddesses. In addition, a truly supremely glorious Entity has to be created by something less glorious and less complex. It can't be a "first cause." Philosophically, a first cause would have to be extremely simple and inglorious, hardly the sort of thing anyone would want to hail, much less worship. The Goddesses and Gods are the strong and glorious ones, while the monotheist god is too inglorious and weak.
Yes, Kirsch wrote a nice book. But given his perspective, he couldn't say anything quite like that! Nor could he even say some of what you'd find in Cioran's little book, "The New Gods." For example, Kirsch would call the victory for the Christians as forcing the adoption of the "Only True God," while Cioran would be more likely to call it forcing the "trading in" of the Gods and Goddesses for a small and ugly "nailed corpse."
Finally, I think Kirsch could have continued his story a little. He could have discussed Charlemagne's battles against the Saxon Pagans. And perhaps he could have discussed the conversion of Iceland to Christianity in the year 1000 A.D. At that time, Hjalti Skeggjason called Freyja a female dog. While that was a rather mild insult, I think it showed that after so many centuries, the Christians still had no good arguments against Paganism. Kirsch, with his legal background, could then have made this point.
|
