Why was the classical West so far behind in religious/spiritual development?

[Tripledoc]

I think it all depends on the fact that 'pagan' or polytheistic religious beliefs in the West were not written down, but was based on an oral tradition.

It also much depends on the rise of a priestly class. The Hindu valley, Egypt (where Moses came from) and the rivers Euphrates and Tigris had an abundance of food.
In early times the priestly class were the ones who decided when harvesting time was - hence the connection between astronomy and religion. Thus they gained power - and had the time to think of new ways to cheat the peasants out of their surplus. Such as inventing punishment in the afterworld for not obeying orders.

In Northern Europe there was a lack of food, and therfore a religious doctrine that awarded a good afterlife if one died in battle was invented.

[Whaleboy]

You could consider the West more developed, because they developed philosophy independent of religion while other groups were still mucking about with theology.

Not true, Eastern philosophies are distinct from religion (as is Greek, particularly post Socratics) even though there is interplay between the two. Philosophy distinct from religion is a relatively new phenomenon in the Christian West.

[Bosh]

Classical polytheism was pretty much dead by the time Christianity got going, it got lip service at best. But there was plenty of other religious stuff, everything from Neo-platonism, Pythagorian number mysticism, Hermetic "science," and a whole mess of mystery cults that ranged from ones of Isis to Mithras to Orpheus, Christianity wasn't different from them except for being much less picky about its member, a little less heavy on Neo-platonism and heavier on middle-eastern monolatism (and contravy to proper belief there were LOTS of monotheistic or monolatric religon in the middle east from the Syrian sun cult that ended up as the Roman Sol Invictus to non-Jewish Hebrew religons such as those of the Samarians etc. and the big one, Zoroastrianism).

Then you have pre-Christianism Gnosticism and religious trends of that sort such as Manichaeism and that's not even counting the philosophical schools of Epicurianism, Cyrnicism, Stoicism etc. etc.

The West before the rise of Christianity was one of the most interesting and diverse religious mileus in history.

[Az]

Why was the classical West so far behind in religious/spiritual development?

Why do you think it was?

[Al B. Sure!]

Stoicism was just as complex as buddhism. they were quite similiar in many ways, in fact.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
Stoicism was just as complex as buddhism. they were quite similiar in many ways, in fact.

Alright beginners. Everyone into the full lotus position until you achieve total enlightenment!

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by JohnT


So, you're claiming that environmental and health conditions in India and China exceed that of the West?

I would claim that half the problems china and india have are because of western imperialism. (particularily the problem of not being "up to par") It wasn't long ago that both where a subject of the British empire.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by JohnT

Then of course came Jesus and Mohammed, and the West finally produced religions that rivaled the East. But it took a long time, and neither were nearly as complex as the eastern religions. In these religions, you do good stuff, and you go to heaven, you do bad stuff, and you go to hell. Yet one could spend lifetimes studying the metaphysics and philosophies of the Hindus.

Is there any explanation for this?

Yeah. We're more pragmatic than they and while we have wasted billions of hours studying crap like how many angels dance on the head of a pin, that's not all that we have done... unlike the Easterners, we did spend some of our time developing a civilization that spans the globe and is capable of feeding billions.

But I suppose that is the difference. The west focused on imperialism while the east focused on spirituality.

Two quite different systems, and when the west came to the east with imperialism in mind, the east was helpless to defend themselves without taking up western culture and methods (with the exception of Ghandi), which has resulted in most of the countries that exist in Asia today.


I just wouldn't say that imperialism "feeds billions" and is a paradigm of civilization. Especially when you consider that the western "global civilization" is present in the very same countries which you are critisizing.

[Kuciwalker]

Re: Why was the classical West so far behind in religious/spiritual development?

Originally posted by johncmcleod
As for the rest of the Western world, they hadn't developed anything beyond simple paganism. People made sacrifices in the manner of a business transaction, they did it in order to gain something worldly and keep the wrath of the Gods away. There was no type of spirituality or any notion of ethics.

Bull****.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by JohnT
And that's about a whack definition of "spiritualism" as I've ever read.

Hint: Spiritualism doesn't mean you believe in Jesus Christ and pray before you go to bed.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by General Ludd
But I suppose that is the difference. The west focused on imperialism while the east focused on spirituality.

Technology = imperialism = bad?

And I call BS on the countries being worse off due to imperialism. Without the West they'd be even more backwards than they are now.

[JohnT]

And I said that it did where?

Nice strawman though!

Edit: response to Crack.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by General Ludd


I would claim that half the problems china and india have are because of western imperialism. (particularily the problem of not being "up to par") It wasn't long ago that both where a subject of the British empire.

actually China was Carved up by just about everyone, except the US.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Originally posted by General Ludd
But I suppose that is the difference. The west focused on imperialism while the east focused on spirituality.

Technology = imperialism = bad?

If you say so.

[/quote]And I call BS on the countries being worse off due to imperialism. Without the West they'd be even more backwards than they are now. [/QUOTE]

I don't believe I said anything anythign about better or worse. Just that that all those countries are under western influence and have been built around western models.

But since you mention it, I certainly wouldn't say that imperialsim was good for anyone except the imperialist. If you want to say that the people overthrowing their imperial overlords and replacing them with a new (but still western) system is good, that would be different. Although still not allways better (and in no case best).

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by General Ludd
I certainly wouldn't say that imperialsim was good for anyone except the imperialist. If you want to say that the people overthrowing their imperial overlords and replacing them with a new (but still western) system is good, that would be different. Although still not allways better (and in no case best).

Were they better off before or after imperialism? If before, imperialism was bad, if after, good.