[Why did the Roman Empire (esp Heartland Home Italy) quickly Adopt Blesed Holy Virgin Mother Mary As THE Goddess When Christianity Became the Official State Religion?]

14 minutes ago, Novosedoff said:

Well, I didn't say that no man in his right mind would worship a goddess (many would still pray a dead Jew: people are more nuts than we think). 

Beg to disagree. Afterall there is a field of Study called Mariology and it gets just as much focus as Biblical Studies and Christology in one Church. (even more in some Orders and Regions)...........

[Why did the Roman Empire (esp Heartland Home Italy) quickly Adopt Blesed Holy Virgin Mother Mary As THE Goddess When Christianity Became the Official State Religion?]

This topic was inspired by a chat  I saw on Discord.

Quote

 

Gonna sleep now but I really wonder why the Abrahamic becamse so patriarchal and "women as chattel property" approach? While European Chrstiaity developed so radcally different and kept mother Goddess? I mean even comparing MidEstern Christian sects to Catholicism and Estern Orhtodoxy you see a major difference in the mportance of Mary So what reasoning can you give? Any Good night see yah tomorrow.

 

 

 

 

Quote

 

Well, the reason behind the Abrahamic denial of matriarchal homage was because of Eve in Genesis, being blamed for tempting Adam to eat the fruit. And in Judaism, it's still present in their practices (Qabalah demonstrates one aspect of how male & female are separated, in a concept of good vs. evil). And the Desert Fathers originally came from that context, which is seen by modern Westerners as "misogynistic" because their own pre-Christian practices accepted women, be it as the role of lustful seductresses like Aphrodite, the downtrodden housewife like Aeval, the mother like Hera or the energetic sportswoman that some men want to follow, like Athena.

 And the reason why Mary was such a no-brainer for those cultures to venerate, during the adoption of Christianity, is because of that pre-Christian acceptance of women as having some role in society (regardless of how complex or simplistic that role in society was).

But then, came the Protestant movement & the desire of some sects to resort to fundamental thought in Judaism (i.e.: Eve tempted Adam to eat the fruit, therefore all women are temptresses to be blamed for bringing man away from God). You see that with the Puritans, Plymouth Brethren, Luddites/Amish/Mennonites & Evangelicals

And what modern Westerners are terrible at, is understanding historical context; rather than concluding that the social issues of the US have its roots in Puritanical beliefs (which led to women traumatised from war with the Natives, being then accused of witchcraft & burnt at the stake, for example, or for the Puritanical belief that fair skin is superior over dark skin due to the way the sun shines on different parts of the world,) misogyny, black rights & (within the last decade only) LGBT rights issues are generally blamed on Christianity as a whole, rather than the initial Puritan sect

Another example; Mohammed's massacre of the Khaiber tribe of Jews who chose to break their peace treaty with Mohammed, to try & sell him out to the Kuresh tribe. If you read the Quran & the history of Mohammed in Medina, he made an alliance with the Jewish Khaiber tribe to be given peaceful residence & religious freedom (along with a Christian tribe). However, the leader of the Khaiber tribe was also a trade partner with the Kuresh tribe that Mohammed came from; in wanting to maintain business alliances, the Khaiber chief tried to mount a war against the Muslims, which failed & resulted in Mohammed's executing every Khaiber man of fighting age. If you look at this in the Medieval Arab context, you understand that it was an act of politics & warfare for the purpose of tribal superiority & survival, aside from the control of resources like water, food, etc. But to the modern Western eyes, it's automatically declared to be "anti-Semitic" because of the fact that Mohammed had Jews executed

Anyways, back to the idea of female representation in religion, the fact is there was an Allat & Allah, there was Ba'al Yahu & that god also had a wife (in Canaanite, Nabatean & Phoenician religion, being all pagan pantheons). However, the Jews are collectively & racially people from all 3 of these ethnicities, so historically speaking it's not exactly out of the question to say that their origins had similar implications as Mohammed's context (where a monotheistic movement sprang up from the syncretised combination of 3 different pantheons, while having revolts against the older generation in a similar manner to Kuresh vs. Mohammed's followers). There's evidence of that in the Old Testament's war against Jericho, for exampe. But never the less, since the establishment accepted female & male equality in the pantheon, while the temporal laws didn't, it'd be safe to assume that the monotheists who revolted against all other idols would also declare that women are not equal, thus eliminating Allat, Ishtar & other idols
Anyways, I'm going to sleep too. Have a good night

 

 

 

 So I'd have to ask despite the sexism of Roman civilization, why were Romans  as well as Greeks so enthusiastically quickly chose Mary Mother of Jesus Christ to become the Goddess like figure of Christianity? While other converted places esp the Middle Est even Christian were not energetic about Mary prayers?

  

Why the Greco-Roman regions had to create a Goddess standin in contrast to Judaism  and Islam?

 

Is there something unique about Greco-Roman culture for this to happen?

 

If Judaism and even Islam ever took over Ancient Rome, would they twist doctrines to create a new standin? LIke say Fatima daughter of MUhammad to be treated like a sacred virgin or Khadjiya  his first life as a standin for Mother Goddess? Would a Romanized Judaism try to interpret Yahweh as having male and female forms?

 

Why did  Blessed Holy Virgin Mother Mary get elevated into a borderline Goddess in ancient Greece and moreso Ancient Rome (esp the homeland of the Empire, the Italian Peninsula) after Christianity became the monopoly religion in throughout the Empire)? Why did other Christian regions esp the MidEast did not go to Venerate the Sacred Mother of God to nowhere close to the same level? Was there something  unique in Europe esp in the modern location of current Italy lacking elsewhere in Africa and the rest of the world during early Abrahamic Religions esp before the Catholic Church canonized its core dogma in the Dark Ages?

[Massacre in the Black Forest Full Movie-FYI This very old Cinematic Production from the 60s Is the Only Screen Dramatization Ever Made About Teutoburg Before Netflix Made Barbarians]

 

 

 

[How was the Catholic Church able to succeed in where the Roman Empire failed the most, subjugate and even civilize the warlike Barbarians Tribes like the Germanics and Picts (modern Scotland)?]

When I was a lurker,  I saw this link.

https://www.unrv.com/forum/topic/18854-the-catholic-church-as-the-beacon-of-order-and-stability-even-peace-after-the-fall-of-the-roman-empire-the-church-as-the-light-of-the-brutal-dark-ages-of-europe/

Along with a question I had about barbarians, its what inspired me to sign up in this UNRV forum.

So I have to ask why? Why did the Romans fail even with use of their mighty armies as the OP pointed out while Church missionaries and priests eventually converted entire regions and barbarian peoples Rome could never subjugate like the Picts of Scotland even with military force (often suffering immense defeats when they entered regions like Northern Netherlands)? Yet the Catholic Church was not only able to convert these various regions and barbaric tribes through peaceful means yet also make even the most backwards and warlike of them like the Germanics of Northern Germany submissive to the Church and adopt order and civilization! How did the Church do it despite advocating a religion that condemned violence esp war and advocated order and stable civilization where as mighty armies of the most powerful civilization to have ever existed in Europe have failed so miserably?

It just doesn't make sense that the Germanics north of the Rhine who did human sacrifices and killed and killed each other for fun would eventually find a religion where a God sacrifices himself for mankind appealing to convert to! The Picts committed preying of the weak because much of their culture vouched the rule of the strong and violence as the prime laws-yet all of Scotland would convert through peaceful missionaries to Christianity which is a religion that ruled for the rich and strong to aid the poor in poverty.

The Irish clans practised nature worshipping but some how Catholic priests convinced them that it is better to live in villages and have a strong organized government than to live as random settlements in the woods and other uncultivated wilderness.

Its simple to miraculous that the Catholic Church didn't have to send knights to convert Northern Germany but did this with a couple of martyred saints! And that the Picts could be convinced by hermits wandering around to start sending charity to the poor and convert to a religion advocating responsibility to watch over the weak and needy! And for people who lived in the wild for centuries in Ireland to throw away their old Gods and follow a Church that encourages a more urban livelihood!

All without needing to send massive armies! The Romans tried to civilize these warlike savages through conquest and subjugation but they failed (often facing mass slaughter of their military forces sent to these barbarian areas they can never actually colonize). But the Church did it through peaceful means with just a couple of preachers voluntarily going across Europe!

How did this unbelievable miracle happen?

[DID EUROPEAN WARFARE AFTER THE FALL OF ROME REGRESS SO MUCH THAT EVEN MEDIEVAL WARRIORS LIKE KNIGHTS WOULD BE DEFEATED EASILY BY DISORGANIZED LESS WARLIKE BARBARIANS LIKE SHEPHARDS IN ENGLAND AND BATAVARI VILLAGERS IN NETHERLANDS?]

One of the cliches always repeated was that warfare by the time of Medieval Ages has regressed so much from the Greco-Roman era and armies of the Medieval Ages were so much more primitive that a typical Greek city like the Argives had much more organized and disciplined armies than the best knights and even a generic Roman auxiliary drafted during the time of Spartacus revolt would destroy any Crusader army.

So it makes me wonder........... Did warfare in Europe become so primitive that even against untrained disorganized barbarians who weren't bloodthirsty in nature like say a large farming community in Gaul and warriors living in buildings made out of straws in Spain easily beat a bunch of Medieval KNights?

Would Dacia slaughter the entire force of over 100 K troops that volunteered for the first Crusade? Like not a single Dacian city would have ever been captured by the over 10,000 remnants of the exhausted battered Crusader army that besieged and captured Jerusalem because Dacian warfare must have been more advanced than 13th century European military science since the Dacians have defeated the Romans?

Its always made out of how much the Feudal System had degraded the quality of Greco-Roman warfare especially in organization and tactics (particularly use of formations). So it makes me wonder if a Medieval Army was so backwards that even primitive more docile barbarians who weren't the most warlike of that the Romans fought (and in fact the Roman Legions easily slaughtered) like mountain people in Turkey would easily beat them?

If not, than how would say the army of King Henry V would have fared against the more aggressive barbarian groups like the specific Gauls Vercingetorix came from or the Picts of Scotland and the Northern Germanic tribes that slaughtered Varus's Legions? Were the Iceni more organized than William Wallace's rebels?