What do you think?
Rate this book
God Against the Gods: The History of the War Between Monotheism and Polytheism
As conflicts over religious extremism dominate our front pages, the bestselling author of The Harlot by the Side of the Road presents a work of history that could not be more a surprising look back at the origins of religious intolerance during the tumultuous fourth century. This is the epic story of how classical paganism, with its tolerance for many deities and beliefs, lost a centuries-long struggle with monotheism and its chauvinistic insistence on belief in one God. With his trademark blend of wit and scholarship, Kirsch traces the war of God against the gods from its roots in Ancient Egypt to its climax during the last stand of paganism the tumultuous fourth century, when two passionate, charismatic, and revolutionary Roman emperors, the Christian Constantine and the pagan Julian, changed the course of history and shaped the world we live in today.
336 pages, Hardcover
First published March 7, 2004
56 people are currently reading
1856 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 90 reviews
April 22, 2013
One True God or Many?
This is a study of the 2,000 year war between polytheism and monotheism, which ended in the victory of religions like Christianity, Judaism and Islam.
I wish I could say I appreciated the book more than I did. I'm intuitively sympathetic to the approach of the author. However, I just don't think he did justice to a great subject.
It's a Bit of a God's Breakfast
While it's an interesting narrative in the style of historian Tom Holland, it seems that Kirsch is first and foremost a journalist who is heavily reliant on quotation of professional historians and secondary materials. He brings little to the cut and paste job in terms of insight or analysis.
Each chapter has a main heading, a sub-heading and an appropriate epigraph. The body of each chapter also contains catchy headings. The problem is that they seem to have been superimposed on the text after it was written, as if the first draft was all text and someone was brought in afterwards to prettify it. The body of the chapters is often haphazard and doesn't always achieve what the chapter headings set out to achieve.
Chapter 1 (sub-headed "A Young Pharaoh’s Experiment in Monotheism and Why It Failed"), which is of particular interest to me, totally failed to explain the reasons for its failure. Indeed, Akhenaton features in less than half of the chapter.
Rigorism and Zealotry Beats Tolerance
If the book can be summarised in one sentence, it would belong to Freud:
"Religious intolerance was inevitably born with the belief in one God."
Implicit in this sentence is Kirsch’s view that monotheism has a dark side, that of rigorism and zealotry attached to the belief that there is Only One True God.
He extrapolates that this same rigorism and zealotry "can be found in all totalitarianism, and nowhere more terribly than in such modern and supposedly secular phenomena as Nazism and Communism".
In contrast, Kirsch argues convincingly that paganism was not crude and demonic, that the classical culture of Greece and Rome was a pagan culture, and that it was tolerant in nature, precisely because it was polytheistic and accepting of gods and cultures of all types, whether they were sourced locally or from afar.
What Do You Believe?
The study proceeds on the basis that "something deep in human nature prompts us to imagine the existence of a power greater than ourselves," whatever we call it or them.
Atheism is almost totally ignored, except to the extent that Kirsch points out that the first use of the term was against Christian monotheists.
As an atheist, I don’t believe that any gods exist. However, I maintain that the existence or non-existence of God is within the realm of "belief", not scientific fact. I accept that if you believe in a God, then it exists for you.
The Pendulum of the Gods
In the past, I have used Akhenaton as my avatar, because it is evidence for me that the belief in one God rather than many is a social construct that is a product of the times.
Kirsch documents the swinging of the pendulum from 1364 B.C.E. to 415 C.E. He shows how the momentum for one belief over another was personalized in individual historical figures. However, nowhere does he contemplate that all of the participants might have been wrong.
That said, Kirsch forcefully makes the point that tolerance of diversity is more important for society than enforcement of conformity, particularly in matters of opinion and belief.
This is a study of the 2,000 year war between polytheism and monotheism, which ended in the victory of religions like Christianity, Judaism and Islam.
I wish I could say I appreciated the book more than I did. I'm intuitively sympathetic to the approach of the author. However, I just don't think he did justice to a great subject.
It's a Bit of a God's Breakfast
While it's an interesting narrative in the style of historian Tom Holland, it seems that Kirsch is first and foremost a journalist who is heavily reliant on quotation of professional historians and secondary materials. He brings little to the cut and paste job in terms of insight or analysis.
Each chapter has a main heading, a sub-heading and an appropriate epigraph. The body of each chapter also contains catchy headings. The problem is that they seem to have been superimposed on the text after it was written, as if the first draft was all text and someone was brought in afterwards to prettify it. The body of the chapters is often haphazard and doesn't always achieve what the chapter headings set out to achieve.
Chapter 1 (sub-headed "A Young Pharaoh’s Experiment in Monotheism and Why It Failed"), which is of particular interest to me, totally failed to explain the reasons for its failure. Indeed, Akhenaton features in less than half of the chapter.
Rigorism and Zealotry Beats Tolerance
If the book can be summarised in one sentence, it would belong to Freud:
"Religious intolerance was inevitably born with the belief in one God."
Implicit in this sentence is Kirsch’s view that monotheism has a dark side, that of rigorism and zealotry attached to the belief that there is Only One True God.
He extrapolates that this same rigorism and zealotry "can be found in all totalitarianism, and nowhere more terribly than in such modern and supposedly secular phenomena as Nazism and Communism".
In contrast, Kirsch argues convincingly that paganism was not crude and demonic, that the classical culture of Greece and Rome was a pagan culture, and that it was tolerant in nature, precisely because it was polytheistic and accepting of gods and cultures of all types, whether they were sourced locally or from afar.
What Do You Believe?
The study proceeds on the basis that "something deep in human nature prompts us to imagine the existence of a power greater than ourselves," whatever we call it or them.
Atheism is almost totally ignored, except to the extent that Kirsch points out that the first use of the term was against Christian monotheists.
As an atheist, I don’t believe that any gods exist. However, I maintain that the existence or non-existence of God is within the realm of "belief", not scientific fact. I accept that if you believe in a God, then it exists for you.
The Pendulum of the Gods
In the past, I have used Akhenaton as my avatar, because it is evidence for me that the belief in one God rather than many is a social construct that is a product of the times.
Kirsch documents the swinging of the pendulum from 1364 B.C.E. to 415 C.E. He shows how the momentum for one belief over another was personalized in individual historical figures. However, nowhere does he contemplate that all of the participants might have been wrong.
That said, Kirsch forcefully makes the point that tolerance of diversity is more important for society than enforcement of conformity, particularly in matters of opinion and belief.
April 10, 2018
This book credits the Reign of Akhenaten (c.1364-1347 BCE) of Egypt with being the first recorded monotheist. That will come as a surprise to those who think of monotheism as being the gift to the world from the Hebrews. The Hebrews deserve credit for keeping the idea alive since Egypt reverted to their traditional polytheism after Akhenaton's death. Freud proposed that Moses was not a Jew but an Egyptian, "Moses conceived the plan of finding a new people, to whom he could give the religion that Egypt disdained."
A reading of the Old Testament account of the Israel reveals repeated problems with their people reverting to the worship of idols (i.e. polytheism). This book follows this history that demonstrates that the concept of monotheism didn't come naturally to the Israelites.
The coverage of history covered by this book continues through the early Christian period through the persecutions under emperor Nero, destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, and then the "Great Persecution" under Diocletian.
Much of this book's material is focused on the lives and reigns of Constantine the Great (272–337 CE) and Julian the Apostate (331-363 CE). Constantine is known for ending the Diocletian persecution of Christians and the initiation of generally favorable treatment given to Christians. Contrary to widely held perceptions, he did not make Christianity the official religion of the Empire.
Julian as emperor tried to revive worship of the traditional gods of Rome. He did not persecute the Christians, however there were some instances where mobs encouraged by his actions did violence to Christians. It's interesting to speculate where history may have headed had Julian been able to remain in power for as many years as Constantine. Constantine had been in power about thirty-one years and Julian only two.
After the death Julian the Roman Empire reverted to its move toward Christianity and Theodosius I (c. 346-395 CE) took the step of elevating Christianity to the legal status of state religion.
Monotheism versus polytheism, it's been a long history. Was monotheism a winner? Ironically, Post Enlightenment's tolerance and acceptance of individual choice regarding matters of religion—or no religion—is much more akin to the social environment of the polytheistic (a.k.a. pagan) world of classical Greece and Rome than to the intolerance of the late Roman Empire and Medieval era when Christianity was the state religion.
The following quotation is taken from the end of this book.
A reading of the Old Testament account of the Israel reveals repeated problems with their people reverting to the worship of idols (i.e. polytheism). This book follows this history that demonstrates that the concept of monotheism didn't come naturally to the Israelites.
The coverage of history covered by this book continues through the early Christian period through the persecutions under emperor Nero, destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, and then the "Great Persecution" under Diocletian.
Much of this book's material is focused on the lives and reigns of Constantine the Great (272–337 CE) and Julian the Apostate (331-363 CE). Constantine is known for ending the Diocletian persecution of Christians and the initiation of generally favorable treatment given to Christians. Contrary to widely held perceptions, he did not make Christianity the official religion of the Empire.
Julian as emperor tried to revive worship of the traditional gods of Rome. He did not persecute the Christians, however there were some instances where mobs encouraged by his actions did violence to Christians. It's interesting to speculate where history may have headed had Julian been able to remain in power for as many years as Constantine. Constantine had been in power about thirty-one years and Julian only two.
After the death Julian the Roman Empire reverted to its move toward Christianity and Theodosius I (c. 346-395 CE) took the step of elevating Christianity to the legal status of state religion.
Monotheism versus polytheism, it's been a long history. Was monotheism a winner? Ironically, Post Enlightenment's tolerance and acceptance of individual choice regarding matters of religion—or no religion—is much more akin to the social environment of the polytheistic (a.k.a. pagan) world of classical Greece and Rome than to the intolerance of the late Roman Empire and Medieval era when Christianity was the state religion.
The following quotation is taken from the end of this book.
... the blessings of Judaism, Christianity and Islam far outweigh—and, we must hope, will long outlast—the curse of religious fanaticism that is implicit in the very notion of the Only True God. But it is also true that we make a mistake when we write off the pagan tradition as something crude and demonic. After all, the values that the western world embraces and celebrates—cultural diversity and religious liberty—are pagan values. And so, even when we congratulate ourselves on being the beneficiaries of twenty centuries of "ethical Monotheism," we might pause and ponder how the world would have turned out if the war of God against the gods had ended with an armistice rather than the victory of the Only True God.
March 28, 2013
Jonathan Kirsch writes his history with a clear distaste for monotheism. I think that is clear from the start. But, he is also very clear about the reason for his distaste, which is that monotheism, with its absolute insistance on the worship of the One True God, brought religious intolerance into existence. The rest of the book is a very good explication of this main thesis, which will make one question the accidents of history that left us with this monstrosity that has encircled the globe with its conquistadors and missionaries, wiping out the diverse store of divine imaginationings of the indigenous peoples of the Earth. He also makes a very good point about the natural symbiosis of the notion of a single devotion to One God in Heaven with the totalitarian notion of One Leader on Earth. This dangerous idea is still at work in various places around the globe, where leaders who crave absolute power do so by claiming a special relationship with the absolute power in heaven. Or, this insidious idea may manifest its dangerous influence when an entire nation, even a democratic one, claims to be the recipient of a special providence and therefore a mandate from heaven for whatever selfish actions it seeks to justify. I think Kirsch's book invites us to consider the world as it was before such thinking was prevalent--a world that was full of different people worshiping different gods--and no one having any problem with that at all.
October 5, 2025
This book contrasts what I'd call liberal polytheism, whereby there is freedom of belief, with hegemonic monotheism, where there isn't. The author begins with Akhenaton in the 14th century BCE and trails off with Hypatia and the Cathars. The focus, however, is on Rome and on Constantine and Julian in particular. The author is no specialist and therefore often cites sources too uncritically.
October 28, 2016
Johnathan Kirsch’s God Against the Gods is primarily a historical survey of ancient Bible history and that of the early days of the Christian church with a focus on Constantine and his adoption of Christianity as the official Roman religion. However, it is from the perspective of how this impacted paganism throughout the centuries. Throughout the book, Kirsch focuses on his objective of painting paganism in as nice a light as possible and downplaying some of its more-evil history and beliefs, while at the same time playing up the nastier perspectives on monotheism (Judeo-Christianity) and painting it in the worst light possible. In doing this, I think he tries to dissuade people from wanting to believe in God and the Bible, but I’ve seen far more well-crafted arguments than those presented in this book.
One major theme is how Kirsch shakes his fist at the evils wrought by monotheism such as the Crusades and the Inquisition, yet he never asks if the actions of these so-called Christians were really in line with Jesus’ teachings and example. In fact, he barely mentions Jesus anywhere, let alone his values and teachings; this is a very convenient omission in a book critiquing, in part, the history of Christianity as it intersected with paganism. Judgment of the merits and truth of Christianity should be directed at the character and teachings of Jesus, not at the fallible humans who seek to exploit religion for their own ends. Kirsch’s historical attacks can’t come close to defaming the real meaning and truths of Christianity.
Early on in the book, Kirsch looks at the early days of monotheism under Moses and addresses the harsh practices of the prophet and of God in upholding his Law and in enforcing this new concept of mono-theism. Yet he seems to miss that the Israelites freely accepted God’s Law along with all its harsh punishments for disobedience. They could have said “No,” but they didn’t. God warned them of what they were agreeing to, so it was not wrong or unjust for God or Moses to carry out punishment, even death for disobedience. They were an immature and unruly rabble of slaves saturated by Egyptian culture and religion. They were children who would only respond to harsh guidance.
Kirsch also asserts that Israel was commanded to enforce the Covenant laws/monotheism on others and kill them for disobeying—this was not so. Kirsch’s writing is full of this fact bending to serve his own ends. Israel did not go spreading their religion by the sword, and their purge of Canaan was not about enforcing the Covenant; it was about serving God’s judgment for centuries of absolute wickedness (Deut. 9:4-6). The Covenant was for the people of Israel and was to be enforced in their own society. There was never any intent to convert the Canaanites to monotheism—God had given them their chance to clean up their act and He wanted them and their evil gone! No different than us purging the evil of so-called ISIS today (except that God didn’t command it)—the entire world recognized their evil, so they need to go!
On a different note, the early parts of the book are one big sugar-coating of paganism, and a diversion from what the Bible was condemning—Kirsch throws out red herrings left and right. He follows a pattern of briefly admitting biblical paganism was guilty of what God and the Prophets spoke out against, only to quickly downplay it or turn the attention to Classical Paganism and how “innocent” and “civilized” it was—not deserving of such biblical condemnation. For example, he freely admits that ancient pagan cultures were prone to the barbaric practice of child sacrifice. He tries to redirect attention and downplay this when he says “But classical paganism cannot be charged with the practice of human sacrifice of the kind that is described in the Bible.” As if this somehow redeems all paganism from the taint of human sacrifice. The fact remains that pagans of biblical times used to sacrifice children and the Bible/prophets rightly condemned it! And while it may not have been blatant religious sacrifice, Kirsch conveniently ignores the Greco-Roman culture’s common practice of exposure (leaving unwanted babies to die in the elements), which lasted well past Jesus’ time and beyond. The end result of their belief system was still to devalue and murder children. Christianity is directly responsible for the end of such practices. Classic paganism is not so innocent in this regard as Kirsch would have us believe.
While Kirsch does manage in all this sugar coating to make classical/modern paganism to appear much less wicked than the practices of biblical times, he overlooks a very serious issue. If Yahweh/Jesus does exist, then any worship of other gods, no matter the ritual involved, is sinful—if it’s killing babies or “harmless” lighting of incense to a false, non-existent god, it is still wrong according to the one true God and His Word. Sin against God is sin against God, no matter how one looks at it or tries to make light of it. And if there is only Yahweh, He does not approve of worship of false gods in any manner—it’s an insult to our creator who alone is worthy of our praise and gratitude. If Yahweh doesn’t exist, and any gods that we can dream up exist, then sure, I can admit paganism is much less harmful than it used to be. I would argue that this is the case primarily because of the residual Christian values remaining in Western culture especially.
Where Kirsch totally lost his credibility with me, though, was the section called “Pious Fraud” starting page 71. He heavily twists the truth about the story of Josiah and his religious reforms (2 Kg. 22 & 2 Chr. 34). In these chapters we learn how Josiah rediscovers the Book of the Law, or “Torah,” and that he and the nation of Israel had been severely disobeying God’s covenant through their many immoralities and worship of false gods. Kirsch tries to tear Josiah down by claiming through mere conjecture that he fraudulently fabricated the book of Deuteronomy in order to help him consolidate his power and enforce monotheism on the Jews. Kirsch displays either severe ignorance of scripture and Jewish history/language (even the surrounding context of the story) or willingness to contort it for his own arguments. Either way, this confirmed to me that Kirsch is hardly a trustworthy academic or historian, and I found the history of the rest of his book to be suspect with only the motivation of showing the plight of the pagan over the centuries.
One major theme is how Kirsch shakes his fist at the evils wrought by monotheism such as the Crusades and the Inquisition, yet he never asks if the actions of these so-called Christians were really in line with Jesus’ teachings and example. In fact, he barely mentions Jesus anywhere, let alone his values and teachings; this is a very convenient omission in a book critiquing, in part, the history of Christianity as it intersected with paganism. Judgment of the merits and truth of Christianity should be directed at the character and teachings of Jesus, not at the fallible humans who seek to exploit religion for their own ends. Kirsch’s historical attacks can’t come close to defaming the real meaning and truths of Christianity.
Early on in the book, Kirsch looks at the early days of monotheism under Moses and addresses the harsh practices of the prophet and of God in upholding his Law and in enforcing this new concept of mono-theism. Yet he seems to miss that the Israelites freely accepted God’s Law along with all its harsh punishments for disobedience. They could have said “No,” but they didn’t. God warned them of what they were agreeing to, so it was not wrong or unjust for God or Moses to carry out punishment, even death for disobedience. They were an immature and unruly rabble of slaves saturated by Egyptian culture and religion. They were children who would only respond to harsh guidance.
Kirsch also asserts that Israel was commanded to enforce the Covenant laws/monotheism on others and kill them for disobeying—this was not so. Kirsch’s writing is full of this fact bending to serve his own ends. Israel did not go spreading their religion by the sword, and their purge of Canaan was not about enforcing the Covenant; it was about serving God’s judgment for centuries of absolute wickedness (Deut. 9:4-6). The Covenant was for the people of Israel and was to be enforced in their own society. There was never any intent to convert the Canaanites to monotheism—God had given them their chance to clean up their act and He wanted them and their evil gone! No different than us purging the evil of so-called ISIS today (except that God didn’t command it)—the entire world recognized their evil, so they need to go!
On a different note, the early parts of the book are one big sugar-coating of paganism, and a diversion from what the Bible was condemning—Kirsch throws out red herrings left and right. He follows a pattern of briefly admitting biblical paganism was guilty of what God and the Prophets spoke out against, only to quickly downplay it or turn the attention to Classical Paganism and how “innocent” and “civilized” it was—not deserving of such biblical condemnation. For example, he freely admits that ancient pagan cultures were prone to the barbaric practice of child sacrifice. He tries to redirect attention and downplay this when he says “But classical paganism cannot be charged with the practice of human sacrifice of the kind that is described in the Bible.” As if this somehow redeems all paganism from the taint of human sacrifice. The fact remains that pagans of biblical times used to sacrifice children and the Bible/prophets rightly condemned it! And while it may not have been blatant religious sacrifice, Kirsch conveniently ignores the Greco-Roman culture’s common practice of exposure (leaving unwanted babies to die in the elements), which lasted well past Jesus’ time and beyond. The end result of their belief system was still to devalue and murder children. Christianity is directly responsible for the end of such practices. Classic paganism is not so innocent in this regard as Kirsch would have us believe.
While Kirsch does manage in all this sugar coating to make classical/modern paganism to appear much less wicked than the practices of biblical times, he overlooks a very serious issue. If Yahweh/Jesus does exist, then any worship of other gods, no matter the ritual involved, is sinful—if it’s killing babies or “harmless” lighting of incense to a false, non-existent god, it is still wrong according to the one true God and His Word. Sin against God is sin against God, no matter how one looks at it or tries to make light of it. And if there is only Yahweh, He does not approve of worship of false gods in any manner—it’s an insult to our creator who alone is worthy of our praise and gratitude. If Yahweh doesn’t exist, and any gods that we can dream up exist, then sure, I can admit paganism is much less harmful than it used to be. I would argue that this is the case primarily because of the residual Christian values remaining in Western culture especially.
Where Kirsch totally lost his credibility with me, though, was the section called “Pious Fraud” starting page 71. He heavily twists the truth about the story of Josiah and his religious reforms (2 Kg. 22 & 2 Chr. 34). In these chapters we learn how Josiah rediscovers the Book of the Law, or “Torah,” and that he and the nation of Israel had been severely disobeying God’s covenant through their many immoralities and worship of false gods. Kirsch tries to tear Josiah down by claiming through mere conjecture that he fraudulently fabricated the book of Deuteronomy in order to help him consolidate his power and enforce monotheism on the Jews. Kirsch displays either severe ignorance of scripture and Jewish history/language (even the surrounding context of the story) or willingness to contort it for his own arguments. Either way, this confirmed to me that Kirsch is hardly a trustworthy academic or historian, and I found the history of the rest of his book to be suspect with only the motivation of showing the plight of the pagan over the centuries.
March 6, 2007
An interesting history of the battle and cultural turning point from polytheism to monotheism. Jonathan Kirsch first gives a quick history of early civilizations attempts at monotheism then spends the rest of the book detailing the rise of Emperor Constantine and Christianity then the rise of Emperor Julian and Paganism. The interesting parts of the book happen when we get glimpses of how monotheistic thought became the prevalent religion amongst latter day Romans.
The early "Pax Romana", the peace of Roman", relied on many religions, even ones of conquered lands, to be given the same amount of respect no matter what your individual belief was. Christians and Jews were seen as threats to the peace since they refused to even acknowledge other gods but theirs, thus thumbing their nose at Rome. Then we get the Christian martyrs with the lions tearing them apart gladiator style and the Jews being exiled to some far off land.
All this changed when Emperor Constantine found it's easier to control the masses with a single religion rather than many. It's also easier to conquer other kingdoms when your army thinks they were ordained by one god. These one-god armies were filled with a martyrs spirit and died willingly for their lord. Constantine never openly said he was Christian, at least not until he was on his deathbed, but knew the power of wielding the name of one god. After Constantine died, Julian, his nephew, took the throne and tried converting Rome back to paganism and almost succeeded but got a spear rammed through him a little too early in his imperial career. After him was another Christian Emperor and the rest, as they say, is history.
A good informative book. It's obvious the author knows a lot about Constantine-era Rome because he goes on tangents about all the backstabbing and plotting going on in the courts. Anyway, it's interesting.
The early "Pax Romana", the peace of Roman", relied on many religions, even ones of conquered lands, to be given the same amount of respect no matter what your individual belief was. Christians and Jews were seen as threats to the peace since they refused to even acknowledge other gods but theirs, thus thumbing their nose at Rome. Then we get the Christian martyrs with the lions tearing them apart gladiator style and the Jews being exiled to some far off land.
All this changed when Emperor Constantine found it's easier to control the masses with a single religion rather than many. It's also easier to conquer other kingdoms when your army thinks they were ordained by one god. These one-god armies were filled with a martyrs spirit and died willingly for their lord. Constantine never openly said he was Christian, at least not until he was on his deathbed, but knew the power of wielding the name of one god. After Constantine died, Julian, his nephew, took the throne and tried converting Rome back to paganism and almost succeeded but got a spear rammed through him a little too early in his imperial career. After him was another Christian Emperor and the rest, as they say, is history.
A good informative book. It's obvious the author knows a lot about Constantine-era Rome because he goes on tangents about all the backstabbing and plotting going on in the courts. Anyway, it's interesting.
April 25, 2014
(I borrowed this book from my local public library.)
I have to say that I am just a little surprised at how quickly I read through this book! It was just that interesting for me.
I was raised with a Baptist teaching and as an adult I have learned there are many sides to Christianity which I was not taught. Many of the Bible stories did inspire my imagination as a child, but in no manner different from Walt Disney. It was the same level of awe and mystery for me. In the middle grades I developed a keen interest in archaeology, especially in a Biblical format. In high school I grew more fond of certain historical periods and cultures. I feel it may be safe to say that my person is a theologian and philosopher at heart.
This is why I chose to read this particular book. I am glad that I did. I found the writing style very clear and easy to understand. It is not riddled with "big" words, you do not need a degree to understand it! Mostly, this is a scholars book. For those with the questions of "Why?...How?" this is perfectly written! The reader is given clear views and referenced quotes to show both sides of the fence. Where there are opinions on a matter, the author includes multiple ones. Normally, any writing with military and political info in it is nearly impossible for me to read without falling asleep! I did not have that issue here, maybe due to the intrigue of the historical players being written about. I learned many things with this book, it is an eye-opener for one raised like me.
This is the first I have read by Jonathan Kirsch, but I promise you it is NOT the last! I headed out to the library today on a mission for another one!
I have to say that I am just a little surprised at how quickly I read through this book! It was just that interesting for me.
I was raised with a Baptist teaching and as an adult I have learned there are many sides to Christianity which I was not taught. Many of the Bible stories did inspire my imagination as a child, but in no manner different from Walt Disney. It was the same level of awe and mystery for me. In the middle grades I developed a keen interest in archaeology, especially in a Biblical format. In high school I grew more fond of certain historical periods and cultures. I feel it may be safe to say that my person is a theologian and philosopher at heart.
This is why I chose to read this particular book. I am glad that I did. I found the writing style very clear and easy to understand. It is not riddled with "big" words, you do not need a degree to understand it! Mostly, this is a scholars book. For those with the questions of "Why?...How?" this is perfectly written! The reader is given clear views and referenced quotes to show both sides of the fence. Where there are opinions on a matter, the author includes multiple ones. Normally, any writing with military and political info in it is nearly impossible for me to read without falling asleep! I did not have that issue here, maybe due to the intrigue of the historical players being written about. I learned many things with this book, it is an eye-opener for one raised like me.
This is the first I have read by Jonathan Kirsch, but I promise you it is NOT the last! I headed out to the library today on a mission for another one!
July 1, 2009
Kirsch writes on a terribly important subject, if only he would keep his focus upon it. The first half or so of God against the Gods is an eye-opening exploration of the differences and conflicts between monotheistic and polytheistic religions, and certainly concludes that the polytheists, while not perfect, were on the whole *far* more tolerant and far less murderous than the Abrahamic religions that sought to eradicate them.
Almost equally valuable is the history lesson Kirsch provides, weaving threads of connection between the monotheism we understand today and its probable birth in ancient Egypt. We learn particularly about the somewhat final showdown in Rome between Christians (Constantine and descendants) and pagans (Julian).
If only it were so. Though a fascinating read in and of itself, the book becomes a kind of historical narrative about Constantine-era political intrigue. Yes, the religious aspect is central, but the book careens from an overview of the conflict between two theologies to a truncated history book on the bloody chess game played between Roman Augusti and Caesars. I would love to read that book, but not here.
Certainly there was more to explore beyond Julian concerning mono-vs.-polytheism, even into the modern world. Why stop so short?
In all, a worthwhile read, though expect to go somewhat off track halfway through.
Almost equally valuable is the history lesson Kirsch provides, weaving threads of connection between the monotheism we understand today and its probable birth in ancient Egypt. We learn particularly about the somewhat final showdown in Rome between Christians (Constantine and descendants) and pagans (Julian).
If only it were so. Though a fascinating read in and of itself, the book becomes a kind of historical narrative about Constantine-era political intrigue. Yes, the religious aspect is central, but the book careens from an overview of the conflict between two theologies to a truncated history book on the bloody chess game played between Roman Augusti and Caesars. I would love to read that book, but not here.
Certainly there was more to explore beyond Julian concerning mono-vs.-polytheism, even into the modern world. Why stop so short?
In all, a worthwhile read, though expect to go somewhat off track halfway through.
February 24, 2010
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.
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.
July 20, 2009
This book was fascinating. It covered the decline of Hellenism and the rise of Christianity in ancient Rome, all the while examining the core differences between Hellenism and Christianity. Namely, that the polytheistic approach of Hellenism is essentially tolerant and kind (accepting of all beliefs and approaches to worship), while the monotheistic approach of Christianity is essentially rigid and intolerant (accepting of only one way to correctly worship and be blessed).
I honestly didn't expect that when I picked it up. I thought it would be something anti-pagan listing all the reasons why monotheism triumphed. Instead it was a great read that focused on the historical elements of the rise of Christianity, debunked some pervasive myths and was just overall interesting.
I 100% recommend this for anyone interested in theology or history.
I honestly didn't expect that when I picked it up. I thought it would be something anti-pagan listing all the reasons why monotheism triumphed. Instead it was a great read that focused on the historical elements of the rise of Christianity, debunked some pervasive myths and was just overall interesting.
I 100% recommend this for anyone interested in theology or history.
Want to read
August 7, 2010If we must have religion and theisms--and apparently we are inevitably magical thinkers--I hate the arrogance of having JUST ONE god, and how that kind of thinking so clearly, so stridently defines an in-group and an out-group. Now, we do seem inevitably also to form up into "us & them," but damnit, religious justifications for it are so insidious, so exculpating, so hard to argue against. (A really good examination of this thesis is Regina M Schwartz's The Curse of Cain: The Violent Legacy of Monotheism.)
December 16, 2022
Amazing book that teaches you the history of western religion in a digestible way that feels more like a a story than a history book.
December 20, 2019
A good introduction to the first to fourth century CE
History books mention Constantine but not much about Julian. The devious ways of mono theisms with their control of the administration has pretty much erased the real history of the world.
The values of the Western world are primarily pagan in their origin, yet pagans are looked down upon due to the influence of Christianity in academic works.
This book introduces the conflicts that continue to today in which mono theisms try to manipulate the thinking and values of the society.
History books mention Constantine but not much about Julian. The devious ways of mono theisms with their control of the administration has pretty much erased the real history of the world.
The values of the Western world are primarily pagan in their origin, yet pagans are looked down upon due to the influence of Christianity in academic works.
This book introduces the conflicts that continue to today in which mono theisms try to manipulate the thinking and values of the society.
June 6, 2018
Excellent overview of the conflicts between paganism and Christianity from the time of Christ until the death of Julian the Apostate. I really liked this book, though I disagree strongly with several of the conclusions made by the author. He clearly stressed the many weaknesses of Christianity and monotheism while emphasizing the strengths of paganism, and while I agree with what he calls "pagan values" - cultural diversity and religious liberty, I find these alive and well in the Christian tradition as well. As an American, I find these to be American values.
His statement on p. 282 that Nazisim and Communisim are "supposedly secular phenomena" is false. Of course Nazism and Communism are secular phenomena. There is nothing to suppose, but this doesn't fit Kirsch's narrative, so he had to stick that in there.
All of Kirsch's material on Julian was excellent and it has inspired me to read some books on Julian. I really identify with Kirsch's portrayal of Julian, and I found myself empathizing with this historical figure.
All of Kirsch's material on Constantine was also first rate. I really appreciated his approach to this man. For these things, I give Kirsch four stars.
So I didn't like Kirsch's overall conclusions, and I also found his Old Testament scholarship to be lacking, but if he cited scholars on the Old Testament, he would have had to abandon some of his views regarding monotheism, and this would not have fit the direction he wanted to go with this book. But it was still a good book!
His statement on p. 282 that Nazisim and Communisim are "supposedly secular phenomena" is false. Of course Nazism and Communism are secular phenomena. There is nothing to suppose, but this doesn't fit Kirsch's narrative, so he had to stick that in there.
All of Kirsch's material on Julian was excellent and it has inspired me to read some books on Julian. I really identify with Kirsch's portrayal of Julian, and I found myself empathizing with this historical figure.
All of Kirsch's material on Constantine was also first rate. I really appreciated his approach to this man. For these things, I give Kirsch four stars.
So I didn't like Kirsch's overall conclusions, and I also found his Old Testament scholarship to be lacking, but if he cited scholars on the Old Testament, he would have had to abandon some of his views regarding monotheism, and this would not have fit the direction he wanted to go with this book. But it was still a good book!
March 28, 2011
Perhaps the world would have been a much better place by now if monotheism had lost to polytheism. It was not until the advent of monotheism that we get Holy Wars and the killing of people because they did not believe in what one thought was the 'true faith.' Until the third and fourth centuries people were allowed to pretty much worship as they pleased, whichever gods and/or goddesses they wanted without fear of being tortured or killed. Paganism did not know of heresy, it was only with biblical monotheism that worshiping the wrong god was a crime punishable by death. It was when the "Christians" were able to use the power of the state that we have people being forced to believe and worship in a certain way or face death. While the modern world generally condemns the Taliban, they are only doing what the "Christians" of the Dark Ages did, destroy learning and force individuals to believe as they do.
June 19, 2018
The book was...OK. The book is separated into two books. Book one dealt with the war between monotheism and polytheism from the time of Egypt to a little after the time of Christ. Book two dealt more with Constantine and Julian.
The author seems to have a disdain or dislike for Christianity and monotheism. He always seemed to stress and state these views in a negative way in the way he would write about them and with the words chosen to describe. I didn't always agree with his conclusions either. For example, Abraham being the first Christian monotheist or with the Israelite's getting monotheism from the Egyptians, specifically one Pharaoh. Book one, to me, felt like it missed the mark.
I did like the way he wrote about Paganism. He helped me to understand better its strengths and values. Something which I haven't really considered before.
I did like book two. I gained a deeper understanding of Constantine and Julian. This is where I really liked the book.
The author seems to have a disdain or dislike for Christianity and monotheism. He always seemed to stress and state these views in a negative way in the way he would write about them and with the words chosen to describe. I didn't always agree with his conclusions either. For example, Abraham being the first Christian monotheist or with the Israelite's getting monotheism from the Egyptians, specifically one Pharaoh. Book one, to me, felt like it missed the mark.
I did like the way he wrote about Paganism. He helped me to understand better its strengths and values. Something which I haven't really considered before.
I did like book two. I gained a deeper understanding of Constantine and Julian. This is where I really liked the book.
December 12, 2020
This book is not exactly what I had imagined it to be. The author spends some time discussing the history of monotheism and how he believes it arose and writes about Judaism and Christianity in the context of their surrounding societies. I do not like how the author makes relatively authoritative statements about cause and effect (e.g. they were polytheist so that carried over into politics too), as I simply don't believe that it is so simple to understand the psychology of historical (or contemporary for that matter) people and societies. Overall, I feel like the book isn't making any compelling arguments and does not seem to have any clear thesis.
October 21, 2022
I find myself frustrated by this book. The subtitle implies that it's the history of monotheism vs polytheism broadly. But in fact it's really about the rise of Christianity in the Roman Empire. We get essentially nothing about Islam. Nothing about the growth of Christianity in Asia. Nothing about missionary activity in the modern era. The core of the narrative is Diocletian through Julian the apostate.
The novelty, such as it is, in the book is that the author treats the rise of Christianity as lamentable. He contrasts tolerant humane pagans against narrow bigoted doctrinaire rigorist Christians. We can almost hear him sighing, with a Roman magistrate, "why is it such a big deal to offer a small token sacrifice to the Gods? Just burn the incense and go on, you don't need to be a martyr here." But that is almost entirely missing the point. Somehow a goodly number of Hellenistic-era Jews found it worth fighting to the death over this as a point of principle; somehow a considerable body of Roman citizens came to think the same. How and why?
It seems like there is something strange and interesting in how Christianity and Islam took over a big chunk of the world. Indonesia was a Hindu/Buddhist place well into the medieval period and then went Muslim. And it wasn't because the Muslims were richer or militarily stronger. Somehow it was appealing. But why Indonesia and not Vietnam / Thailand? Why do the Saxons and Germans all adopt Christianity after the fall of the Empire? Why do the Irish and Scandinavians, who haven't even been in the empire and who otherwise are not much inspired by Roman models?
The author gives us a few clues. He acknowledges something had gotten very hollow about traditional Hellenistic/Roman paganism by the time of Jesus. Plato is already making fun of polytheism. The philosophers are contemptuous of it. Judaism is attracting a shocking level of interest. The mystery cults seem like a flailing attempt to use special effects to make up for a bad script.
The author does mention in passing the thing the Christians have always boasted about -- a stubborn willingness to assert universal humanity: no to slavery, no to exposing infants, no to human sacrifice and gladiatorial games. I would have liked a serious analysis of whether that was a major driver of the rise of Christianity.
If I were writing this book, my question would be why monotheism went nowhere before the year, say, 300BC and then expands without bound after. The author answers no such question.
The novelty, such as it is, in the book is that the author treats the rise of Christianity as lamentable. He contrasts tolerant humane pagans against narrow bigoted doctrinaire rigorist Christians. We can almost hear him sighing, with a Roman magistrate, "why is it such a big deal to offer a small token sacrifice to the Gods? Just burn the incense and go on, you don't need to be a martyr here." But that is almost entirely missing the point. Somehow a goodly number of Hellenistic-era Jews found it worth fighting to the death over this as a point of principle; somehow a considerable body of Roman citizens came to think the same. How and why?
It seems like there is something strange and interesting in how Christianity and Islam took over a big chunk of the world. Indonesia was a Hindu/Buddhist place well into the medieval period and then went Muslim. And it wasn't because the Muslims were richer or militarily stronger. Somehow it was appealing. But why Indonesia and not Vietnam / Thailand? Why do the Saxons and Germans all adopt Christianity after the fall of the Empire? Why do the Irish and Scandinavians, who haven't even been in the empire and who otherwise are not much inspired by Roman models?
The author gives us a few clues. He acknowledges something had gotten very hollow about traditional Hellenistic/Roman paganism by the time of Jesus. Plato is already making fun of polytheism. The philosophers are contemptuous of it. Judaism is attracting a shocking level of interest. The mystery cults seem like a flailing attempt to use special effects to make up for a bad script.
The author does mention in passing the thing the Christians have always boasted about -- a stubborn willingness to assert universal humanity: no to slavery, no to exposing infants, no to human sacrifice and gladiatorial games. I would have liked a serious analysis of whether that was a major driver of the rise of Christianity.
If I were writing this book, my question would be why monotheism went nowhere before the year, say, 300BC and then expands without bound after. The author answers no such question.
June 10, 2022
A fascinating look at the struggles between religious beliefs at the very dawn of Christianity. Kirsch makes very compelling arguments about the connection between pagan beliefs and Christianity, and how their differences led to some of the first holy wars in history. I had some idea of the bloody conflicts that the early christians performed in, but I couldn't have imagined the brutality and mercilessness of the martyrs of the time.
I particularly found the stories of Constantine, Constantius II, and Julian fascinating. Their dynamics made them seem like very interesting characters all their own (I especially enjoyed learning about Constantine's colorful wigs and Julian's immaculate wit). The struggle between religious institutions at this time reflected the struggles these own men faced in their lifetimes. One can only wonder what kind of world we would currently be living in if Julian hadn't died so young and been able to restore the pagan hegemony.
My one note is that I'm disappointed in Kirsch for not mentioning Zoroastrianism and its early influence on Christianity. For an author who wanted to map the beginning of monotheism, I find it very surprising that there was no mention of the world's first monotheistic religion, which heavily shaped the future of monotheism. Then again I'm no religious scholar, so perhaps he had his reasons. Otherwise I found the read to be very interesting and informative.
I particularly found the stories of Constantine, Constantius II, and Julian fascinating. Their dynamics made them seem like very interesting characters all their own (I especially enjoyed learning about Constantine's colorful wigs and Julian's immaculate wit). The struggle between religious institutions at this time reflected the struggles these own men faced in their lifetimes. One can only wonder what kind of world we would currently be living in if Julian hadn't died so young and been able to restore the pagan hegemony.
My one note is that I'm disappointed in Kirsch for not mentioning Zoroastrianism and its early influence on Christianity. For an author who wanted to map the beginning of monotheism, I find it very surprising that there was no mention of the world's first monotheistic religion, which heavily shaped the future of monotheism. Then again I'm no religious scholar, so perhaps he had his reasons. Otherwise I found the read to be very interesting and informative.
July 24, 2025
(2.5) contributed a lot to my research on the history of polytheism/monotheism, and there really was so much fascinating historical information that should be taught in schools, but the book would've been better titled as God Against the Gods: The History of the War Between Judaism, Christianity, and Roman Polytheism. it opens with a good introduction into the terrors of monotheism and its mostly unknown historical emergence amidst the various polytheistic religions but quickly abandons any development into Islam as well as the Christian-deemed "pagan" beliefs of countries outside of ancient Rome. Islam is only mentioned once more in the last chapter covering modern-day religious extremism; either Kirsch was too scared to explore the touchy subject or just cares fervently more about ancient Rome, a subject that is explored for nearly the entire second half of the book. aside from that, the writing felt quite...2nd Year/junior-high social studies textbook to me? so much information is repetitively conveyed through the entire book. I grew very tired of Kirsch's phrase "the war of God against the gods" which he was evidently very proud to coin, given that it's on practically every page.
January 23, 2020
This was quite an interesting book that sought to answer the question “what did we lose when monotheism won?”. Kirsch writes honestly and openly about the “pagan” culture of polytheists that promoted tolerance and inclusion. By tracing the development of monotheism, from Akhenaten to the Jewish and Christian faiths, Kirsch highlights not only how strange the concept was but how hostile it was from its very beginning. Kirsch also seeks to go beyond the scandalized descriptions of pagan rituals that have come down to our day and instead uncover what these rites were truly like and highlight how similar they were to the rites that monotheists would go on to adopt. He subsequently focuses on the ascendance of Christians within the Roman empire and highlights the reigns of Constantine the Great, his sons and the brief rule of Julian to examine their approach in balancing the Christians’ monotheism with the polytheistic majority of the empire. All in all, this was quite an informative book that openly talked about the dark side of monotheism as well as the bright side of polytheism.
December 2, 2019
Monotheism is humanity's worst invention ever, I am wont to say. This book by Jonathan Kirsch does nothing to dispel that notion. Of course things are not so simple but, as Kirsch delineates, the institutionalization of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman imperial family, ie Constantine the Great and his heirs, was also the birth of the modern totalitarian state.
The byword, throughout. is "rigorism."
"...rigorism and zeal that characterized the war of God against the god (sic) can be found in all totalitarianism, and nowhere more terribly than in such modern and supposedly secular phenomena as Nazism and Communism..."
"...The new rigorists include Jews, Christians and Muslims, and the atrocities of September 11 are only the most recent examples of the violence that men and women are inspire to commit against their fellow human beings by their true belief in the Only True God."
The byword, throughout. is "rigorism."
"...rigorism and zeal that characterized the war of God against the god (sic) can be found in all totalitarianism, and nowhere more terribly than in such modern and supposedly secular phenomena as Nazism and Communism..."
"...The new rigorists include Jews, Christians and Muslims, and the atrocities of September 11 are only the most recent examples of the violence that men and women are inspire to commit against their fellow human beings by their true belief in the Only True God."
November 29, 2018
This is a fascinating book, which focuses primarily on the historical side of the shift to monotheism. It ends after Emperor Julian the Apostate, pagan nephew of Emperor Constantine. The book makes a lot of good points about how monotheism and religious intolerance go hand in hand, and totalitarianism and mob rule played an important role in the stamping out of polytheism.
This book is a good companion to the similarly named books "How Jesus Become God" by Bart Ehrman and "When Jesus Became God: The Struggle to Define Christianity during the Last Days of Rome" by Richard Rubenstein. I think the writing in Kirsch's book is better than either of the other two books, but all three are worth reading.
This book is a good companion to the similarly named books "How Jesus Become God" by Bart Ehrman and "When Jesus Became God: The Struggle to Define Christianity during the Last Days of Rome" by Richard Rubenstein. I think the writing in Kirsch's book is better than either of the other two books, but all three are worth reading.
October 22, 2025
Akhenaton, an Egyptian Pharoah, and Josiah, a Jewish king, were not only the first known monotheistic kings but also zealots who forced their beliefs on their peoples. Kirsch argues that monotheism was the first step in history that led to the concept of totalitarianism. While pagan worship included dozens of gods to be worshipped, none demanded to be worshipped exclusively. Believers could pick and choose their gods, adding and leaving their gods at will. Monotheism provided a means for kings to maintain spiritual control over their minions.
October 23, 2019
Refreshing read
Backed by meticulous research, this book provides a glimpse on the rise of monotheism and how it emerged as the key religious belief in Europe. Book is well-written and shares a balanced perspective and is littered with personal stories and anecdotes. It also illuminates the probable motivations of behind historical decisions made. The language is rich yet easy to understand. Overall, it makes up for a compelling read for anyone interested in this topic.
Backed by meticulous research, this book provides a glimpse on the rise of monotheism and how it emerged as the key religious belief in Europe. Book is well-written and shares a balanced perspective and is littered with personal stories and anecdotes. It also illuminates the probable motivations of behind historical decisions made. The language is rich yet easy to understand. Overall, it makes up for a compelling read for anyone interested in this topic.
February 4, 2023
this was highly informative and delightful to read! it introduced me to one of my new fav historical figures (emperor julian the apostate), in fact! it must be said, however, that this book is objectively against monotheism. while it is done in a pretty respectful way (and i had to agree with many of the points as an agnostic person), be warned that you might not like this if you are a practicing monotheist. but overall a great read for anyone interested in ancient history and/or religion!
August 1, 2018
Kirsch offers an unusual perspective on the histories of paganism and Christianity that is, in many ways, eye-opening. I don’t completely agree with him - I think he exaggerates some things in order to make his argument - but in doing so he provides a much-needed alternative viewpoint of religious history. I’ll be incorporating some of this the next time I teach early Christianity.
March 2, 2021
Feels like I've already read this...not good. Kirsch provides a history of monotheism vs. polytheism with some insights that monotheism has lead to intolerance and everything else that comes along with it. Quelle Surprise? No...however, his supporting argument for the above is compelling. His writing style kept me going even when I wanted to sit it aside.
December 2, 2021
A history of the conflict of monotheism with classical paganism. A sympathetic view of classical paganism mainly in Rome and Greece compared to the lack of tolerance particularly in "rigorists" of monotheistic religions. A god bit of the boo was taken up with the history of Christianity during the time of Constantine and the period through about 80 years afterf his death.
May 1, 2024
Since reading Gore Vidal's historical fiction Julian, I've been a fan of the Roman emperor who attempted to revive classical religion and philosophy in the face of the early Christian intolerance set in motion by Julian's uncle Constantine. And it seems author Jonathan Kirsch is just as big a fan, considering a relatively large section God Against The Gods lovingly details Emperor Julian's upbringing and accomplishments (however short-lived). This is truly one of the big "what-ifs" in European history. Had Julian not been killed in battle and succeeded in his reforms, things would surely have progressed differently and perhaps even the so-called Dark Ages might have been prevented. As in Vidal's novel, certain leaders of the early Christian Church are shown to be petty and murderous, as they quibble even among themselves over ridiculous nonsense such as whether Christ is "of the same substance as God" or "of similar substance". Indeed, Kirch's main point is how such thinking arises from focus on the "One True God" and how it inevitably leads to systematic bigotry against practitioners of polytheistic worship, as well as those monotheists considered to be in error. Though I do think this simplifies things a bit, history has shown it to be generally true. A case in point turns out to be the later Emperor Theodosius, who raises Christianity to the state religion of Rome, codifies it, and in an early version of totalitarianism, ruthlessly leads the charge to eliminate all traces of competing religions, polytheistic and monotheistic alike. These can be seen as early "suicide bombers" of their day, a point which the book hammers home repeatedly.
Interestingly too, I remember learning in a college art history class about the oddball pharaoh Akhenaton and his obsession with the sun disc god; though I've never really considered seeing him as a monotheist until reading this book.
Perhaps my being a Catholic-turned-atheist makes this a case of a book "preaching to the choir", especially since I've read enough history to know how conquering armies are usually followed by missionaries as part of their exploitation of cultures deemed "inferior". Though pagan culture is somewhat idealized throughout God Against The Gods, I think the author's view of polytheism's general live-and-let-live attitude is a mostly valid one.
Interestingly too, I remember learning in a college art history class about the oddball pharaoh Akhenaton and his obsession with the sun disc god; though I've never really considered seeing him as a monotheist until reading this book.
Perhaps my being a Catholic-turned-atheist makes this a case of a book "preaching to the choir", especially since I've read enough history to know how conquering armies are usually followed by missionaries as part of their exploitation of cultures deemed "inferior". Though pagan culture is somewhat idealized throughout God Against The Gods, I think the author's view of polytheism's general live-and-let-live attitude is a mostly valid one.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 90 reviews