The problem before the problem of evil

[Dclements]

Many years ago I came across a book that talked about the various aspects of Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic religions and one of the topics/issues in it was before Christianity and Islam it was heresy for anyone to claim they knew of a god that was all powerful, all knowing, and good that was willing to meddle in their affairs and that of other people.

The problem was that any being that was all that would be either too removed from our concerns to give a rat's backside about us and/or any being with God-like abilities (or perhaps even a resourceful or technologically advance mortal) would be capable of too easily con us into believing that they were such a 'God'. With these too issues it is almost all but a given that any and all proof of any being trying to prove that they are actually 'God' could be reproduced by a very smart and resourceful God-like being; or Cartesian evil demon for that matter. Added to this is that any person talking about such things (along with what 'God' wants us to or not do, and how he defines what is good and evil) is far out steeping any authority they have by any and all existing human authority that they may come in contact; since they would only recognize "God's" will as the only legitimate authority. Basically it boils down to anyone similar to Jesus to Joan of Arc in the ancient world was considered both a complete crazy person and a major threat to be removed as soon as possible (along with any of their followers) as the risk of such beliefs spreading was as dangers as cancer is to health cells.

Of course this changed a bit after Abrahamic religion took hold in western society and the the common view went from it was crazy to believe in such things to it it is crazy not to believe in 'God' meddling in our affairs. Of course, the people usually interpreting God's will are priest that have been given such authority to talk about such things and they often avoid most of the more crazy things that God' had asked his followers in the past to do.

The interesting thing about the change from non-Abrahamic to Abrahamic is it is one of the few situations where there is a complete change in the paradigm in how a society thinks where it is very hard for one person to see the world from either side of the issue since both consider the other crazy. I was wondering if anyone has some information where I can find more material on this ( I forgot the name of the book I read this in) or any thoughts on this issue.

-- Updated November 19th, 2016, 2:39 pm to add the following --

Come on, doesn't anyone have an opinion or something to say about this? This is similar to the problem discussed in Lewis's trilemma where he says:

"Christ either deceived mankind by conscious fraud, or He was Himself deluded and self-deceived, or He was Divine. There is no getting out of this trilemma. It is inexorable."

(I'd post the link to it on Wikipedia but the system won't let me do that yet...)

With the additional issue that it is impossible for anyone to know through fact whether a 'supernatural' being is 'God' through fact and they can only know through 'faith'; which is extremely sketchy when dealing with problem of such magnitude. There must be some atheist or even some theist that knows what I'm talking about.; whether they want to admit it or not.

[LuckyR]

Many years ago I came across a book that talked about the various aspects of Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic religions and one of the topics/issues in it was before Christianity and Islam it was heresy for anyone to claim they knew of a god that was all powerful, all knowing, and good that was willing to meddle in their affairs and that of other people.

The problem was that any being that was all that would be either too removed from our concerns to give a rat's backside about us and/or any being with God-like abilities (or perhaps even a resourceful or technologically advance mortal) would be capable of too easily con us into believing that they were such a 'God'. With these too issues it is almost all but a given that any and all proof of any being trying to prove that they are actually 'God' could be reproduced by a very smart and resourceful God-like being; or Cartesian evil demon for that matter. Added to this is that any person talking about such things (along with what 'God' wants us to or not do, and how he defines what is good and evil) is far out steeping any authority they have by any and all existing human authority that they may come in contact; since they would only recognize "God's" will as the only legitimate authority. Basically it boils down to anyone similar to Jesus to Joan of Arc in the ancient world was considered both a complete crazy person and a major threat to be removed as soon as possible (along with any of their followers) as the risk of such beliefs spreading was as dangers as cancer is to health cells.

Of course this changed a bit after Abrahamic religion took hold in western society and the the common view went from it was crazy to believe in such things to it it is crazy not to believe in 'God' meddling in our affairs. Of course, the people usually interpreting God's will are priest that have been given such authority to talk about such things and they often avoid most of the more crazy things that God' had asked his followers in the past to do.

The interesting thing about the change from non-Abrahamic to Abrahamic is it is one of the few situations where there is a complete change in the paradigm in how a society thinks where it is very hard for one person to see the world from either side of the issue since both consider the other crazy. I was wondering if anyone has some information where I can find more material on this ( I forgot the name of the book I read this in) or any thoughts on this issue.

-- Updated November 19th, 2016, 2:39 pm to add the following --

Come on, doesn't anyone have an opinion or something to say about this? This is similar to the problem discussed in Lewis's trilemma where he says:

"Christ either deceived mankind by conscious fraud, or He was Himself deluded and self-deceived, or He was Divine. There is no getting out of this trilemma. It is inexorable."

(I'd post the link to it on Wikipedia but the system won't let me do that yet...)

With the additional issue that it is impossible for anyone to know through fact whether a 'supernatural' being is 'God' through fact and they can only know through 'faith'; which is extremely sketchy when dealing with problem of such magnitude. There must be some atheist or even some theist that knows what I'm talking about.; whether they want to admit it or not.

You bring up legitimate flaws in the Modern god idea. No doubt many here can't/won't go there since it undercuts their dogma. Sorry to break it to ya, but I've been there already.

[Renee]

Dear dclements, I found your thesis by random, and it fascinated me.

I often get fascinated by way of life in the ancient world, and how it still affects us today.

For instance, (parallelling your religious norm prior to Christ, I quote a socio-anthropological norm), people in the ancient world were preservists. Plato mentioned in The Republic that the urn maker or the tent maker must not make too many urns or tents, because a time of idleness will follow, and he runs the risk of forgetting the practice of his trade.

This preservism was apparent in mating as well. People of standing were required to have two children, not manier, not fewer. Because that way the population stagnated, and did not overgrow its renewable resources. (Slaves were a renewable resource, they could be made to swell in numbers, but the "extras" were sold into non-reproducing occupations, such as stone cutting, and gladiator schooling, etc., where they would perish sooner or later before they'd get a chance at a wet one. So to speak.)

So... the old man patricius, or the plebeius, both had to suffer incredibly long periods of sexual abstinence. They were RESPECTED if they were successful at it.

-----------

Now, about the forbidding of monotheism of super-powerhouse gods. Christians were persecuted perhaps exactly for that reason. In the early days.

What could have caused the flip? Well, easy: it was easy to see that the dogma served both the ruling class and the poor classes. The ruling class got more power to it by "all power derives from god"; if you are the governor of god, then disobeying you is disobeying god, which gives you incredible power. If you were poor, you had already got a HUGE brownie with getting into the kingdom of heaven, which under the old religions was not even dreamt of. You were a serf all your life, you died with your name. You were a king, you became an everlasting god after death. Christianity leveled the playing field for the afterlife, which appealed to the poor, and at the same time maintained a status for the rich, "we are all equal, except some of us are more equal than others", to quote George Orwell, and they were happy too.

How can you reject a religion that 1. makes everyone happy, 2. gives more power to the ruling class, and 3. grants special privileges to the rich, without 4. the poor being bitter about it?

It was a win-win scenario.

It all started with the Jews, who claimed they were god's own special people. That already had an appeal to it. So when the synod decided to make christianity inclusive, instead of staying matrilineal, the convicts flooded the places of worship. The only thing that stopped them were the Roman oppressors, really.

That's my take on it, anyhow.

[Dark Matter]

You bring up legitimate flaws in the Modern god idea. No doubt many here can't/won't go there since it undercuts their dogma. Sorry to break it to ya, but I've been there already.

That or it's simply incoherent.

[Renee]

You bring up legitimate flaws in the Modern god idea. No doubt many here can't/won't go there since it undercuts their dogma. Sorry to break it to ya, but I've been there already.

That or it's simply incoherent.

No, it's not incoherent. It's only incoherent to those who don't have the capacity to comprehend it.

You are again not putting forth an argument, Dark Matter. You are just splurting out opinions. This is a philosophy forum, where you have to substantiate your opinion. If you want your opinion heard without substantiation, I would suggest Facebook or other social media forums. This here is a philosophy forum. You ought to adhere to the rules of philosophical argumenting. They are outlined in the meta-pages.

-----

What you proved here is that you reject a higher power. "Ignorance is power." You are rejecting something complex simply because you don't understand it.

[Dark Matter]

(Nested quote removed.)

That or it's simply incoherent.

No, it's not incoherent. It's only incoherent to those who don't have the capacity to comprehend it.

You are again not putting forth an argument, Dark Matter. You are just splurting out opinions. This is a philosophy forum, where you have to substantiate your opinion. If you want your opinion heard without substantiation, I would suggest Facebook or other social media forums. This here is a philosophy forum. You ought to adhere to the rules of philosophical argumenting. They are outlined in the meta-pages.

-----

What you proved here is that you reject a higher power. "Ignorance is power." You are rejecting something complex simply because you don't understand it.

Isn't "splurting out opinions" something we all do? Including what you did above? I understood what was said, but that's not to say it is coherent.

Ever hear of panentheism? In the light of panentheism, what is said in the OP is simply incoherent. It makes no sense.

-- Updated December 4th, 2016, 1:11 am to add the following --

Your error, very, very common among atheists, is supposing that the word "God" is in reference to a being alongside other beings. And doing so ignores the implications of what "infinite" implies.

[Dclements]

Sorry about not posting any replies to anyone earlier...my home computer is down and the only way for me to access one is at the local library or use a relatives.

[Dclements]

You bring up legitimate flaws in the Modern god idea. No doubt many here can't/won't go there since it undercuts their dogma. Sorry to break it to ya, but I've been there already.

If people don't wish to question their own beliefs then nothing I say will change their mind; however I'm not posting only to change peoples minds but to give ammo to those who already question and may need help finding additional arguments to Abrahamic beliefs. Also I was hoping someone may have some information that might help me as well.

Besides why would anyone come to a philosophy forum if they didn't want to be told stuff they didn't want to hear; for all I know this is the last place someone like that would want to visit.

-- Updated December 4th, 2016, 4:47 pm to add the following --

Dear dclements, I found your thesis by random, and it fascinated me.

I often get fascinated by way of life in the ancient world, and how it still affects us today.

For instance, (parallelling your religious norm prior to Christ, I quote a socio-anthropological norm), people in the ancient world were preservists. Plato mentioned in The Republic that the urn maker or the tent maker must not make too many urns or tents, because a time of idleness will follow, and he runs the risk of forgetting the practice of his trade.

This preservism was apparent in mating as well. People of standing were required to have two children, not manier, not fewer. Because that way the population stagnated, and did not overgrow its renewable resources. (Slaves were a renewable resource, they could be made to swell in numbers, but the "extras" were sold into non-reproducing occupations, such as stone cutting, and gladiator schooling, etc., where they would perish sooner or later before they'd get a chance at a wet one. So to speak.)

So... the old man patricius, or the plebeius, both had to suffer incredibly long periods of sexual abstinence. They were RESPECTED if they were successful at it.

I'm not sure where you where going with this other than that perhaps Abrahamic religions undermined a certain balance that existed in the ancient world. As an atheist I would like to agree (since true faith requires a one to give up on 'finess'/sanity in order for it to work) but since many followers seem to be mindless sheep or drones most of the time , instead of real fanatics, I'm unsure of the difference between the two perspectives you are talking about.

-----------

Now, about the forbidding of monotheism of super-powerhouse gods. Christians were persecuted perhaps exactly for that reason. In the early days.

What could have caused the flip? Well, easy: it was easy to see that the dogma served both the ruling class and the poor classes. The ruling class got more power to it by "all power derives from god"; if you are the governor of god, then disobeying you is disobeying god, which gives you incredible power. If you were poor, you had already got a HUGE brownie with getting into the kingdom of heaven, which under the old religions was not even dreamt of. You were a serf all your life, you died with your name. You were a king, you became an everlasting god after death. Christianity leveled the playing field for the afterlife, which appealed to the poor, and at the same time maintained a status for the rich, "we are all equal, except some of us are more equal than others", to quote George Orwell, and they were happy too.

How can you reject a religion that 1. makes everyone happy, 2. gives more power to the ruling class, and 3. grants special privileges to the rich, without 4. the poor being bitter about it?

It was a win-win scenario.

It all started with the Jews, who claimed they were god's own special people. That already had an appeal to it. So when the synod decided to make christianity inclusive, instead of staying matrilineal, the convicts flooded the places of worship. The only thing that stopped them were the Roman oppressors, really.

That's my take on it, anyhow.

The problem is that it really isn't a win-win situation. In life there is rarely anything that doesn't come with a price and having to believe the king is wearing clothes when he isn't one of them.

Abrahamic religions are often very hostile to the people outside of their culture (AND within their ranks), plus they are narrow minded when it comes to understanding information or dealing with problems that are different then what they believe in. The only reason that the Western world doesn't suffer as much as we use to a few hundred years ago is that secular beliefs have decoupled church and state to a degree and has allowed some open mindedness to exist. While Dharmic beliefs are not perfect, they at less allow the ebb and follow of various ideas to migrate between their many, many schisms without too much fighting.

-- Updated December 4th, 2016, 5:00 pm to add the following --

That or it's simply incoherent.

My ideas or opinions may be wrong but before I will consider them wrong (or anyone else to consider their position wrong for that matter) I need you to explain WHY I'm wrong. To say I'm wrong without explaining why is simply ad hominem fallacy.

I think the fact that some people have thought about my OP and replied with their thoughts may it very likely that I wasn't quite as incoherent in my post as you are suggesting.

[Alias]

before Christianity and Islam it was heresy for anyone to claim they knew of a god that was all powerful, all knowing, and good that was willing to meddle in their affairs and that of other people.

In which of the several hundred religions practiced at the time? Did all, most or some of those religions have a concept of heresy? If so, what was their policy toward heretics?
Odd, that the Egyptians had no such response to the cult of Amun-Ra.

The problem was that any being that was all that would be either too removed from our concerns to give a rat's backside about us and/or any being with God-like abilities (or perhaps even a resourceful or technologically advance mortal) would be capable of too easily con us into believing that they were such a 'God'.

Afaik, no ancient peoples had any such concerns. This is a very modern objection to Big Omni. [/quote]
What change? Which society? Hinduism,. Jainism and Buddhism didn't go anywhere. Christians and Muslims may have conquered much of the world and forced many of the people to subscribe to their brands of craziness, but that doesn't mean all the North and South American or African natives forgot all about their ancestral belief systems.

where it is very hard for one person to see the world from either side of the issue since both consider the other crazy.

What sides or what issue? There are many stories about many gods. If you are indoctrinated in a belief system from early childhood, it is, indeed, very hard to think outside of that box. Yet a great many people, including Christians, do fight their way to clarity.
Why would you want to find that book? There are so many books that offer so much information! I prefer to start with an overview of ancient mythologies, even though that's likely to be restricted to city-state civilizations. You can then go to authorities on Indian, African, American and Australian myths and legends.

-- Updated December 4th, 2016, 5:02 pm to add the following --

The interesting thing about the change from non-Abrahamic to Abrahamic is it is one of the few situations where there is a complete change in the paradigm in how a society thinks where it is very hard for one person to see the world from either side of the issue since both consider the other crazy.

Should have gone before : "What change?" My editor function accidentally erased it, leaving a pathetic orphaned close quote sign behind.

[Dark Matter]

My ideas or opinions may be wrong but before I will consider them wrong (or anyone else to consider their position wrong for that matter) I need you to explain WHY I'm wrong. To say I'm wrong without explaining why is simply ad hominem fallacy.

I didn't say you are wrong. What I said is that in light of panentheism, the argument is simply incoherent because the infinite God is not infinitely removed from man.

[Dclements]

before Christianity and Islam it was heresy for anyone to claim they knew of a god that was all powerful, all knowing, and good that was willing to meddle in their affairs and that of other people.

In which of the several hundred religions practiced at the time? Did all, most or some of those religions have a concept of heresy? If so, what was their policy toward heretics?
Odd, that the Egyptians had no such response to the cult of Amun-Ra.

There are two aspects of what was heresy: one was to claim that they were a prophet who talked to 'God' (or at least a prophet from 'God' who claimed that his will was different than what the mainstay church at the time claimed that he wanted), and the other was to claim that 'God' was an all around nice guy who gave a rat's backside for even the most lowly human being and was concern for all of our welfare. Even today, the first one will likely put someone on a collision course with the church (just like it did in Joan of Arc's or Mose's time) for obvious reasons.

With the second one there are certain nuances that one must consider. For one there has always been the problem of evil, and the other is the absurdity of someone claiming that both they talk to 'God and on top of it to claim that he has told that person that he cares about everyone. It use sound like something someone might tell you while they were trying to play a confidence game on you before the fallacy of appeal to repetition and appeal to authority made it almost as right as rain for many people. It is hard to explain how the before and after mindsets are completely different (because they are completely different paradigms)except it you might understand it if you imagine the terror of a Jehovah witness (or some religious cult if they don't make you uncomfortable) at your door that wants you to come to their church/cult meeting this weekend, and they just won't take 'no' for an answer.

Most of the religions that where pestered by the theist where pagan groups that where hostilely wiped out or assimilated by the theist. Since most knowledge of them (or at least their beliefs) were destroyed. I know of one Abrahamic schism which was Gnosticism which got wiped out since it undermined the Christian authority at the time.

Also you should note that cult of Amun-Ra and other groups you may be thinking of likely didn't subscribe to an all-powerful/all-knowing God, that this 'God' was 'good' and cared about even the most worthless wretch there was, AND (and this is very important one) that this group was super, super aggressive in spreading their word to anyone and everyone to the point of being willing to kill those that resisted.

The problem was that any being that was all that would be either too removed from our concerns to give a rat's backside about us and/or any being with God-like abilities (or perhaps even a resourceful or technologically advance mortal) would be capable of too easily con us into believing that they were such a 'God'.

Afaik, no ancient peoples had any such concerns. This is a very modern objection to Big Omni.
What change? Which society? Hinduism,. Jainism and Buddhism didn't go anywhere. Christians and Muslims may have conquered much of the world and forced many of the people to subscribe to their brands of craziness, but that doesn't mean all the North and South American or African natives forgot all about their ancestral belief systems.

I think you are greatly overlooking the issue that almost all of what is now Western civilization use to believe some other religious beliefs than that of one of the Abrahamic religions and many of these other religions where wiped out when they confronted a group that was a group that believed in one of the Abrahamic religions. Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism haven't been wiped out (yet) but I believe there has been several centuries where there has been confrontation with Islamic groups with the former seemly being more harassed by the later than the other way around. Also these religions are not part of Western civilization and haven't been in direct contact with Christianity or at least in a way that they had to compete with each other for land or resources.

If there are any people in Western civilization that practice some of their old beliefs it is likely small groups that managed to survive both the confrontation and assimilation into Western society but these groups are so small (or at least to what they were or compare to Abrahamic groups and institutions) that their existence is hardly anything more than moot when compared to the influence of Abrahamic religions on Western civilization, and it's influence on cultures outside of it .

What sides or what issue? There are many stories about many gods. If you are indoctrinated in a belief system from early childhood, it is, indeed, very hard to think outside of that box. Yet a great many people, including Christians, do fight their way to clarity.

Perhaps some but I don't think that many. After all most people still think the king is wearing clothes.

Why would you want to find that book? There are so many books that offer so much information! I prefer to start with an overview of ancient mythologies, even though that's likely to be restricted to city-state civilizations. You can then go to authorities on Indian, African, American and Australian myths and legends.

I want to find it because I want to verify what I can remember from reading it several years ago. Also I remember that the person that was explaining it said that the church tried to destroy any traces of such beliefs because they felt they could directly undermine their own beliefs so very few references to it exist. If I was interested in certain beliefs in any other religion I might look for it but tha is not what I'm looking for at the moment.

[Alias]

I didn't ask how you imagine the charge of heresy might have worked in ancient times. What I asked was which particular pre-Abrahamic religions had a policy of considering other views heresy, and which heresies were particularly opposed, and how they dealt with such heretics as they might encounter. You have answered none of thesew questions, and i suspect you do not have the information. If that is, in fact, the case, any claim you make about the people and religions of that time are without substance.

Also you should note that cult of Amun-Ra and other groups you may be thinking of likely didn't subscribe to an all-powerful/all-knowing God, that this 'God' was 'good' and cared about even the most worthless wretch there was, AND (and this is very important one) that this group was super, super aggressive in spreading their word to anyone and everyone to the point of being willing to kill those that resisted.

Amun-Ra is not a "group" but a synthesis of two major ancient Egyptian deities. Each was immensely powerful in his own right; together, he/they became equivalent to the omnipotent god of the much later Christians. Abraham's little tribal god didn't come close - regardless of the hyperbolic story told by the Jews after exiting Egypt. If their had been the more powerful, would they be the ones wandering in the desert? Jehova didn't get promoted above his level of competence until the Roman army started backing him. The Hebrews were aggressive, but the Romans were effective.

[Dclements]

I didn't ask how you imagine the charge of heresy might have worked in ancient times. What I asked was which particular pre-Abrahamic religions had a policy of considering other views heresy, and which heresies were particularly opposed, and how they dealt with such heretics as they might encounter. You have answered none of thesew questions, and i suspect you do not have the information. If that is, in fact, the case, any claim you make about the people and religions of that time are without substance.

There is not a lot of information out there about how any particular non-Abrahamic religion dealt with heresy or any recorded example of what they did to a heretic. Since heretics, traitors, and/or witches where often viewed the same way I can assume that a person accused of any one of the three where treated the same way which is slowly tortured and then killed ; or sometimes just killed if they were lucky.

I did mention the OP that I was going only a short passage in a book that I read many years ago and that I was hoping someone might be able to help me find similar references. Because of this I feel that I have been open and honest in that the information to back up what I'm talking about is limited at best, but that is why I'm looking for more.

Amun-Ra is not a "group" but a synthesis of two major ancient Egyptian deities. Each was immensely powerful in his own right; together, he/they became equivalent to the omnipotent god of the much later Christians. Abraham's little tribal god didn't come close - regardless of the hyperbolic story told by the Jews after exiting Egypt. If their had been the more powerful, would they be the ones wandering in the desert? Jehova didn't get promoted above his level of competence until the Roman army started backing him. The Hebrews were aggressive, but the Romans were effective.

I know before Christianity there where many religions and/or cults pertaining to Sun gods and many of gods where considered to believed the creator of everything; or at least have a hand in some aspect of creation. Also it is believed by some (including myself) that it is likely Christianity borrowed heavily from these Pagan religions in the fabrication of their own religion.

I also know that some of this Sun gods, as well as a few other, where considered at some times all knowing and all powerful but then at other times not so much. Even in the Bible, God seem to be only a 'all-mighty' and emotional/bi-polar god and not the Omni everything being we often think of when we talk about 'God'. I think the problem of an 'all-powerful' god/God comes from when you are dealing with various religions existing together and someone starts claiming that their god is all powerful /perfect and that everyone else should only pay attention to their god/'God'. Even before there was Christianity there were people realized the problem of evil when someone tried to claim their god/God was all powerful. I guess what I'm getting at is that I believe in the ancient world it wasn't exactly PC to claim your god was better than someone else's, it was even worse to claim your god is all powerful/perfect and their was nothing. I think the equivalent today would be for one person to claim their country is great while another person's country is worthless if both feel strongly about the own country. Also I think it is a given that what I'm talking about isn't about a casual conversation two people might have about the deities but something more along the line of a very aggressive one that may only be resolved by force.

At any rate what I was trying to get at was that I imagine that for the powers that be(or their equivalent of peacekeepers) in the ancient world watching over a society that had many religions worshipping several different, any aggressive (ie evangelical) monotheistic group would be frowned on; as well as any 'prophet' preaching such beliefs to others. While it wasn't a given that such people would cause trouble, it is hard to imagine why anyone would be aggressively preaching monotheistic beliefs unless they wished to convert everone else to their cause.

[Renee]

The problem is that it really isn't a win-win situation. In life there is rarely anything that doesn't come with a price and having to believe the king is wearing clothes when he isn't one of them.

Abrahamic religions are often very hostile to the people outside of their culture (AND within their ranks), plus they are narrow minded when it comes to understanding information or dealing with problems that are different then what they believe in. The only reason that the Western world doesn't suffer as much as we use{d} to a few hundred years ago is that secular beliefs have decoupled church and state to a degree and has allowed some open mindedness to exist.

I don't think you addressed the INHERENT issue how I explained the success of the monotheistic Christianity. Your initial question was, "how did monotheistic religions replace others and survive"; I gave you an answer, which gives a perfect explanation as far as my abilities are concerned. You criticized it outside of the merits of what I claimed were the reasons.

Abrahamic religions are hostile or appear hostile because of resource depletion (or of the appearance of it.) Any war will be started on an ideological basis, and when the entire European continent was Christian, then Christianity was used on both sides as the ideological basis. Against non-Christian enemies it was used because it was the only one available to use.

If you take Homer's "Iliad" as an example, there are lots of instances in it where gods are used as metaphors to represent the sources of differences for which men drew swords to settle. In the proliferation of Christianity, the only deity to refer to was one single god. However, it was NOT the god that started the wars; men started the wars, over depleting resources, and they claimed that they did this to establish justice as god wanted it done.

I'm an atheist, and this is my biggest beef with other atheists, most often with mainline secular Humanists: Gods, or their ideals, never started a war. Their (gods') symbolism was used as an ideological tool, and a very strong one, to support wars that in my belief always start on a materialistic basis. The Christian god has got too much negative flack for this, but it's only because of the limited (reduced to one) number of gods that man was able to use to defend his reasons to go to war ideologically.

My personal grief with the Christian mythology is that, like all other religions' mythology, it is unreasonable, and it insists on verified untruths and on dogmas that not only can't be supported, but are logically flawed. I resent the hordes of followers of Christianity who would rather proclaim a falsehood than admit to the ultimate truth or to a reasonable truth, because of their (unquestioning) faith on the teachings of their religion.

[Alias]

There is not a lot of information out there about how any particular non-Abrahamic religion dealt with heresy or any recorded example of what they did to a heretic.

In point of fact, there is. A lot. Start here http://www.ancient.eu/religion/ or with Bullfinch or Campbell, or any of the comprehensive overviews, then read into their bibliographies for more detail on each religion's practices.

Since heretics, traitors, and/or witches where often viewed the same way I can assume that a person accused of any one of the three where treated the same way which is slowly tortured and then killed ; or sometimes just killed if they were lucky.

This is your surmise. Have any reference?

I did mention the OP that I was going only a short passage in a book that I read many years ago and that I was hoping someone might be able to help me find similar references. Because of this I feel that I have been open and honest in that the information to back up what I'm talking about is limited at best, but that is why I'm looking for more.

So, you're interested only in confirmation?

I guess what I'm getting at is that I believe in the ancient world it wasn't exactly PC to claim your god was better than someone else's, it was even worse to claim your god is all powerful/perfect and their was nothing.

Pretty much like saying, "My dad can lick your dad."
But 'the ancient world' was nothing like a single entity. Many people, at various stages of social development, most of them unaware of the existence of most of the others, each tribe or nation with its own beliefs, attitudes, legal codes and responses.

At any rate what I was trying to get at was that I imagine that for the powers that be(or their equivalent of peacekeepers) in the ancient world watching over a society that had many religions worshipping several different, any aggressive (ie evangelical) monotheistic group would be frowned on; .

Frowned, possibly. Boiled in kettles, very rarely. Why do you think the Christian missionaries were able to do so much harm?
Had the natives killed missionaries on sight, as a matter of principle, the world might have spared a lot of strife.