Religion has been a basis of societies since the beginning of clip. From stray societies, to societies immersed in trade with foreign lands, the thought of a higher being for which to thank for all the good luck bestowed upon the society is present. Although the thought of faith is present in all civilisations, it takes on different signifiers and importance in different facets of life. And with these differences comes the fluctuations in everything from authorities, to architecture. These differences can be seen in civilisations such as, ancient Egypt and Maya. Religious beliefs were the foundation of both these civilisations ; nevertheless, the nucleus intent of faith was greatly different. In Egypt, the nucleus intent of faith was to set up justness and regulate the people. It was used to set up who the swayer of the lands was, and was used to acquire rid of immorality in the society. Whereas the Mayans used faith to all that occurred in their society ; from decease, to common unwellness. But merely as these two civilisations had their differences in beliefs, they besides had many similarities. They worshiped in similar ways, were able to set up different categories through faith, and created really similar architecture in which to idolize and honour the Gods. Another similarity that these two civilisations shared was that, neither was monotheistic. Both civilisations worshipped many Gods for many different facets of their lives. While we explore the similarities and differences of both these civilisation ‘s spiritual patterns, we will come to happen a distinguishable difference that in fact makes one faith more good to the greater good of the society. Because Egypt ‘s spiritual patterns focus more on political standing and justness, whereas Maya ‘s faith was based on ascendant worship and prediction of the hereafter, Egypt ‘s faith was far more good to the promotion of its ‘ society.

The similarities between the two faiths range from the architecture it created, to the manner each civilisation honored their dead. In each civilization, people of a higher, diviner, category were buried with material goods that were deemed utile to them in the hereafter. An illustration of this in ancient Maya can be shown by the entombments of priests and people of divination. “ A priest might be buried with some of his books. A adult male who had been diviner was buried with his rocks for divination, every bit good as other instruments of his profession ” ( Marcus, 182 ) . Such objects placed in these graves were ways to guarantee that these people were accepted among the Gods. These rocks and material objects were carefully chosen and placed with the organic structures to guarantee the Godhead ‘s right to be entered into Eden. This pattern is really similar to one used by ancient Egyptians, “ the Egyptians believed that people would necessitate many articles for usage in the life after decease, and accordingly they equipped their Gravess and graves with a assortment of goods ” ( Hinnells, 182 ) . This is in fact highly similar to the patterns of the ancient Mayans. Egyptians took great attention in supplying their dead with the goods they felt indispensable to vouch their entryway and success in the hereafter. Equally good as the similarities of stuff goods being buried with the dead, there is another similarity that these two civilisations shared, as shown in the old quotation marks, and that is the belief in an hereafter. Both societies formed strong beliefs in life after decease, and each civilisation believed that the hereafter included a infinite among the Gods. The misanthropic belief that each civilisation shared was, the belief that you needed to fundamentally purchase your manner into Eden. By burying people with material goods such as gems and gold, they send the message that merely the wealthy and those of upper category will be welcomed among the Gods. This thought of the rich and godly being welcomed into Eden because they could afford it created a distinguishable category system. Many may see this as a negative consequence of faith on society, but instead this acted positively for ancient Egypt. It created a rough signifier of authorities and hierarchy that can be compared to modern America. These categories, formed by faith, made the chief end of ancient Egyptian faith possible ; which was truth and justness.

There's a specialist from your university waiting to help you with that essay.
Tell us what you need to have done now!

order now

Another similarity shared by the Mayans and Egyptians, was the promotion in architecture created by faith. Both civilisations used temples to honour the deceases of their higher up functionaries, such as male monarchs and priests. “ The aristocracy… were cremated, with their ashes being placed in urns, and subsequently the Maya built temples above their entombments ” ( Marcus, 182 ) . The Mayans celebrated their dead in a really similar manner to the Egyptians. These temples constructed over the organic structures served non merely as a topographic point to idolize their fallen leaders, but besides to pay worship to the Gods that watched over their society. This was really similar to the Egyptians, who used temples to idolize the Gods and fallen male monarchs, but unlike the Mayans, Egyptians used two different temples in which to chiefly idolize their life and asleep male monarchs and Gods. “ By and large, the Godhead cult composite ( cultus temple ) was used for the worship of a God and sometimes of a ( normally ) populating male monarch, whereas in the royal cult composite ( mortuary temple ) , the worship of a Godhead male monarch ( normally deceased ) was maintained, sometimes accompanied by the worship of another God ” ( Hinnells, 49 ) . These promotions in architecture caused by faith, created some of the most impressive and long-standing composites in history. However, this is another illustration of how the faith of antediluvian Egypt created a more structured and organized society. It is apparent that the grave of ancient Egypt were constructed before the decease of the male monarch being honored, whereas the grave of the Mayans were created postmortem. Which means the king chosen by Godhead right organized this labour to build the grave. This may non look like it proves a better organized society, nevertheless historiographers such as Dr. Warren Barbour suggest that these pyramids were built through revenue enhancement labour ( Barbour, Lecture 2008 ) . This supports that faith fueled an advanced and organized authorities that did non govern through coercion, but instead set Torahs.

In both ancient Egypt and Maya, the people would travel to the temples to idolize the Gods and their fallen male monarchs. This is a fact of common cognition ; nevertheless, they shared another similarity of worship. Priests and male monarchs would execute secret rites on behalf of the people of their imperium. In mention to ancient Maya, “ the priesthood maintained secret patterns on behalf of larger territorial and political units ( sometimes referred to as a ‘state ‘ faith ) ” ( Marcus, 180 ) . Ancient Egypt performed rites similar to these ; nevertheless, the rites of ancient Egypt took topographic point in a separate and distinguishable grave, “ the mortuary temples were the locations for rites performed by the male monarch or high priest on behalf of the occupant diety plus the dead… ” ( Hinnells, 49 ) . Once once more, this is an illustration of the patterns of Egyptian faith being good to the society as a whole. The high priests and male monarchs performed rites for those who had antecedently passed on and could non honour the Gods on their ain. This may be a really little benefit to society, but it shows that those in high political power cared for those who have passed before them ; which creates a greater trust towards those people in higher political places, which in bend creates a more stable civilisation.

So far it is pretty apparent that, even in the similar facets of spiritual patterns in these two civilisations, ancient Egypt ‘s faith is more inclined to break the society. This point is merely enhanced by the differences in the spiritual patterns. One major difference, was, the intent of faith in each civilisation. The Mayans used spiritual ceremonials, such as the light ceremonial, to derive supernatural cognition, “ In the… light ceremonial, shamans employ crystals to [ foretell ] cognition of events and causes of unwellness… ” ( Brady, 130 ) . Religion in ancient Maya was used as a manner of announcing events that had yet to go on, this of class has no benefit on society. Besides, as a portion of their faith, they did non try to handle unwellness, as they thought “ unwellness may be caused when 1 ‘s psyche is sold to the cave-dwelling Earth Godhead ” ( Brady, 130 ) . Religion was non used for the improvement of society, but instead, a manner to explicate that which they did non understand. Whereas ancient Egypt used faith to regulate society, and make a criterion of moral codifications of which the people should populate by. It was said, “ the Sun-God and Godhead, Re, placed the male monarch on Earth in order that he might set up ma’at ( justice/truth/order ) and annihilate isfet ( injustice/lie/disorder ) by judging world and fulfilling the Gods ” ( Johnston, 155 ) . The Gods of ancient Egypt served a greater intent than merely announcing the hereafter. The Gods were used to make moral codifications of justness, which people of Egypt endeavor to populate by in order to delight the Gods. Supreme beings in Egypt represented jurisprudence and order, and without such moral codifications, any society is doomed to endure from pandemonium and prostration. So by making these thoughts of Torahs proclaimed by the Gods, Egyptians further strengthened the nucleus of their civilisation.

Making offerings to the Gods has been a common pattern in many faiths. However, this was taken to an inhumane degree by the Mayans. “ In add-on to allowing their ain blood with stingray spinal columns, obsidian blades or knotted cords, the priests sacrificed birds, animate beings, and fish… .the most common victims of forfeit, following human existences, was the domestic Canis familiaris ” ( Marcus, 182 ) . This can be seen as a negative consequence because it showed that the Gods non merely condoned decease and violent death, but wanted and needed it in order to honor the people. It created a belief that non doing such offerings would take their Gods ‘ presence from their lives, and that they would be punished by a bad crop or hapless conditions. The Egyptians viewed offerings to the Gods in a more reasonable manner. Egyptians believed, “ withholding offerings would do the Gods non hunger but merely withdraw into their supernal or infernal residences ” ( Johnston, 156 ) . The ground this was good to Egyptian society, was, Egyptians were able to see that offerings to the Gods would non do their Gods leave them hopeless. This made such extremist offerings that the Mayans made to the Gods seem irrational and unneeded, so the Egyptians did non experience the demand to fall back to such extremist steps.

Egyptians were more reasonable in the sum of Gods they worshiped every bit good. They did non hold a God for every facet of life, whereas the Mayans had an obscene sum of Gods. “ One is normally overwhelmed by the figure of ‘gods ‘ enumerated ( 250 by one count ) and their overlapping facets or ‘spheres of control ‘ ” ( Marcus, 180 ) . This makes equal worship seem about impossible, and the fact that the Gods overlapped in their “ domains of control ” makes Mayan faith seem unstructured and unorganised. When a civilisation is incapable of forming something as indispensable and common as faith, it does non portend good for the promotion of that civilisation. Egyptians, on the other manus, had a more direct and personal connexion with God. “ The male monarch [ of Egypt ] was regarded as the embodiment of God on Earth ” ( Hinnells, 72 ) . By holding this individual among them, a God on Earth, the people of Egypt had a direct connexion with their Gods. This go-between between the people and the Gods created a stronger, diviner devotedness to the Gods themselves. This strong connexion could easy raise the morale of the people in the Egyptian civilisation.

The faith of antediluvian Egypt besides helped increase an Egyptians consciousness of the universe around them. “ Ancient Egyptians were invariably occupied in watching the sky and in detecting all sorts of natural phenomena… the end of this attending was non divination… but to help the Gods in keeping the universe ” ( Johnston, 156 ) . This may look like a really undistinguished fact, but it is really rather radical. Countless cultures believed the Gods were almighty and responsible for all that happened, but, through faith, the Egyptians were able to understand that they had a duty to the Earth. They were able to grok that the Gods were non in control of every action and reaction, but instead, the Gods needed aid in the care of the universe. With this basic apprehension of duty to the universe in which they live, the Egyptians were able to to the full appreciate what the Gods had given them, and therefore increase their satisfaction with life.

The Egyptian people believed that their Gods were really forgiving. Historians called it, “ a singular type of faith, i.e. to a sincere sense of wickedness and to full assurance in the clemency and the forgiveness of the divinity ” ( Bleeker, 84 ) . This is a testament to the equity of the swayer. As stated before, the male monarch was seen as a God on Earth, and if the people of Egypt felt that their Gods were genuinely forgiving, than this must intend that their male monarch ruled really reasonably. Not merely was the king a just and merely swayer, but in their faith itself, forgiveness of wickednesss was a common pattern. In fact, a ritual known as pureness could be performed to cleanse oneself of their incorrect behaviors. “ Purification was performed by pouring H2O upon oneself, by firing incense, by utilizing natron, by altering one ‘s apparels ” ( Bleeker, 86 ) . Such simple Acts of the Apostless could cleanse one ‘s physical and religious being. Such easy stairss to cleanse oneself of incorrect making would give the people of that epoch hope of a good life after decease. If you were pure, your opportunities at Resurrection were greater ; priests took great attention in sublimating organic structures before burial. This attention for the mean adult male could animate hope in the common common people of the land, and animate the common common people to swear those in the high authorities places. Such content with the authorities and the political functionaries could all but guarantee a successful and long permanent civilisation.

The faith of ancient Egypt, being more politically and socially focused, led to a better and more successful civilisation ; whereas the faith of ancient Maya did nil to significantly break the Mayan civilisation. Although these two faiths shared many similarities, such as, architecture, burying of their dead with material goods to guarantee a pleasant hereafter, and worship of the Gods at specifically designed temples, the differences between the two faiths and their patterns greatly change the significance of each faith on its ‘ civilisation. The faith of ancient Egypt was used to set up an thought of truth and justness in the society, whereas the faith of ancient Maya was used for prediction of the hereafter and ascendant worship, which had no important impact to break the Mayan civilisation.

Furthermore, Mayan faith was unfocussed and impractical, with over two hundred and 50 Gods, which “ domains of power ” overlapped ; it became a job to be able to delight every God. The faith of ancient Egypt was one of necessity and good intent, they did non overpower themselves with enormous sums of Gods for every facet of life, but instead, had Gods for the necessities of life, such as Re, the Sun God. With such a focussed, concise, and politically focussed faith, ancient Egypt was able to boom with a strong political system that established a jurisprudence and order in the land.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *