Reading "Anabasis" and reading a bit about native religions, ancient religions were localized, ethnic, and expedient. You didn't worship gods in your pantheon because they were the universal gods everyone was obligated to worship, but because they were the gods of your tribe/nation/region and they obviously held sway here and helped with the harvest and fertility. Xenophon never criticized the Persians gods nor any of the gods of the regions he passed through. The Greeks weren't helping Cyrus and his men over religion but because Cyrus paid them. The Persians and Greeks, despite being in Cyrus' army, sacrificed to their own gods in the morning and didn't debate whose gods were the right ones. On a larger scale, emperors might argue that their gods were more powerful by pointing to their own might and size of their empire, not because their gods were the true gods. The ancients seemed aware that there was a universal God of gods over all humanity, but they didn't have a practice for worshipping him in most cases. You didn't build and idol or totem to Him.
I mean, that is objectively false in the case of the Greeks. There were idols and totems and statues and rites of worship all over the place. Egyptians too. And in any case, you are limiting things to circum-Mediterranean derivative cultures. But those notions about "ancient" religion don't hold everywhere. They don't hold in Mesoamerica or South America. They don't hold in the Pacific.
Judaism claims that the Hebrew God is the only true God, all humanity is obligated to worship Him though he revealed Himself only to the Jews, and the rest of the gods are demons. Christianity agrees and argues that God is triune, Jesus Christ is the promised Messiah (incarnate God) promised in the Old Testament, and now God has been revealed to all the nations not just the Jews. Islam believes there is one God and Mohammed is the prophet of God. WIthin each of of these religions are claims that contradict the other religions. They can't all be true.
Why should any of them be true? And why should the emergence of some religious traditions with totalizing, exclusive narratives change the rules of the game? Why should anyone be obligated to worship them, or anything for that matter?
If Jesus was the final prophet, why do I need Mohammed?
Big "if," with absolutely no way to test it. So why should anyone believe it if they don't want to?
If Jesus isn't the promised Messiah according to Jewish Scripture, why should I believe it?
Maybe just come to terms with the idea that Christianity is a received tradition that works for you, but it by no means corners the market on truth?
Pluralism just means everyone is allowed a measured of civic freedom of religion to worship their gods in their own way - religio licitas in the Roman empire. If someone asks me why I believe my religion is the true one, I'm going to tell them.
Cool, I respect that. As long as I'm not held to it.
Well, we're Westerners so we've mostly learned our own history. Most people bringing religion into matters of war are just making up a pretext for doing it. Westerners use Christianity obviuosly. Sargon used his gods.
Hard to judge someone's thoughts and motivations for their actions. Were the conquistadors devout or were they just murderous colonials? Were the Crusaders doing God's will in reconquering the Holy Land or were they merely out for plunder? Or was it both?
Bing. I'm using the pre-1648 definition.
I mean, the word first appeared in the 12th century, so have at it. But it's kind of confusing, as there is five decades worth of literature on nations and nationalism -- Anderson, Gellner, Hobsbawm, the list goes on.
