Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

You all are overthinking this. Christianity's success is from the fact that it was a very successful universalizing religion in a region full of of ethnic religions. This is also why Christianity went West instead of East, with both Zoroastrianism's semi-universalizing status and the general difficulty of East-West trade hindering it.

Christianity won converts because it was the only one looking for them with priority. Ethnic religions do still grow, but it isn't a priority in the same way as it is for a universalizing religion. It was ultimately just a matter of time for one of the emperors to have ended up listening to the Christians, and with a figure that powerful believing in it the rest of Rome was certain to follow.

Christianity did nearly not make it, though. If Rome had split or collapsed before a Christian Emperor happened, it probably would have stagnated it at best and shattered it at worst. We see this in how Christianity's spread was very limited following the actual collapse of Rome, when it was already the most powerful single religion in Europe.

[mainiac]

You all are overthinking this.  You all are overthinking this. Christianity's success is from the fact that it was a very successful universalizing religion in a region full of of ethnic religions. This is also why Christianity went West instead of East, with both Zoroastrianism's semi-universalizing status and the general difficulty of East-West trade hindering it.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

Right off the bat I will tell you that Christianity did go east quite a bit.  It wasn't until the Roman Sassinid peace broke down in the 4th century that Christians and Zorastrians started kicking each other out.  Shortly before that war the presumptive heir of the Sassinids was Christian and the future eastern Roman emperor was tutored in the Sassinid court.  There was tons of cultural exchange.

The reason for this was trade.  Quite contrary to what you said East-West has been the main axis of trade since roman times.  We have records of roman senators complaining how all the silver was leaving the empire to buy Chinese silk.  Of the four great empires of the high classical period, two of them, Ethiopia and Persia, were built on this east west trade.

I don't mean to say that your talk about a universal religion might not have merit.  But this is a very multifaceted phenomena that you can't say is just about that one thing.

Christianity did nearly not make it, though. If Rome had split or collapsed before a Christian Emperor happened, it probably would have stagnated it at best and shattered it at worst. We see this in how Christianity's spread was very limited following the actual collapse of Rome, when it was already the most powerful single religion in Europe.

Christianity actually spread quite a bit after Rome fell.  It was just that it had to first spread once again into the same territories because the barbarians drove the borders back.  If you account that some regions like Normandy and Britain were Christianized twice then you'll see that more territories were christianized outside roman control then in it (not counting American colonies or 19th century africa or the like).

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Right off the bat I will tell you that Christianity did go east quite a bit.  It wasn't until the Roman Sassinid peace broke down in the 4th century that Christians and Zorastrians started kicking each other out.  Shortly before that war the presumptive heir of the Sassinids was Christian and the future eastern Roman emperor was tutored in the Sassinid court.  There was tons of cultural exchange.

When I say it went West instead of East, I am meaning that it was much more successful in the former than the latter. Obviously it would attempt to go in both directions, but the East ultimately didn't work out very well.

Christianity actually spread quite a bit after Rome fell.  It was just that it had to first spread once again into the same territories because the barbarians drove the borders back.  If you account that some regions like Normandy and Britain were Christianized twice then you'll see that more territories were christianized outside roman control then in it (not counting American colonies or 19th century africa or the like).

Which proves my point that Rome's fall hurt Christianity. It just didn't hurt it enough to stop or kill it. If Rome had fell before it was fully Christianized, that might not have been the case.

[mainiac]

When I say it went West instead of East, I am meaning that it was much more successful in the former than the latter. Obviously it would attempt to go in both directions, but the East ultimately didn't work out very well.

Well yes aside from the fact that it wasn't true for the first three centuries and the fact that something completely different from what you are talking about is the reason the trend changed...

\
Which proves my point that Rome's fall hurt Christianity.

Except that's not what you said.  You said that Christianity didn't spread after rome spread, which just ain't so.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Well yes aside from the fact that it wasn't true for the first three centuries and the fact that something completely different from what you are talking about is the reason the trend changed...

Three centuries of spread followed by over a thousand of being pushed out does not a success make.

Except that's not what you said.  You said that Christianity didn't spread after rome spread, which just ain't so.

I said Christianity's spread was limited after Rome fell, which is completely true. They were pushed back, but eventually recovered.

[Frumple]

Three centuries of spread ... does not a success make.

I... don't think it works that way, MSH. Three centuries of inroads is pretty darn successful. States haven't even been around that long, yet.

Success followed by failure, perhaps, in that case, but I wouldn't really judge this sort of thing on the net. Terrible heuristic, means everything has preemptively failed. Sun expansion happens eventually, and then time passes and stuff's spent more time splatted than running about. Several million years of existence followed by exponentially more of non-existence? Welp, guess it's a failure

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Universalizing religion spread has an actual endgoal, that being the conversion of all humanity. While this is unlikely-to-impossible to achieve, it does give us a metric to measure it by.

[Neonivek]

Universalizing religion spread has an actual endgoal, that being the conversion of all humanity. While this is unlikely-to-impossible to achieve, it does give us a metric to measure it by.

It also helped that the Christian religion actually outright justified taxes.

Unlike Pagan religion the Christian religion supported the current power structure much better.

It is why often political stances seem an awful lot like religions.

[Reelya]

I mean i know it came with Israelite Slaves to Rome

Nah, it wasn't Israelite slaves, it spread across the Empire via the way of Greek and Egyptian cultists / converts. Once the Greeks were onto something, it was going to spread fast, and far. (BTW they love this "we we slaves" thing, but read the old-testament description of Joseph's time in Egypt - Jews ended up with all the control of the government, food supply, money, land, livestock, and herded (concentrated) the Egyptians into the cities like cattle whilst giving their kinfolk free food and the best land. These are all known modern tactics of invaders disenfranchising a foreign populace - this isn't anti-Jewish propaganda, the bible gloats about it. Then, they get all surprised when the natives rise up against them ... and suddenly they're the victims. The Jews were just as much bigots as every other race).

Also "Israelite" is really a misnomer, as the historical Kingdom of Israel only existed from about ~900BC to ~700BC. It's seriously over-blown. You might as well refer to Iranians as Babylonians and Sumerians for all the sense it makes.

Christianity was first declared a heretical sect by the orthodox Jewish religious authorities, and thus split off as a separate thing, plus they actively converted non-Jews to the sect, something Judaism did not do. Some people also think that the "one god in heaven" idea appealed to Roman citizens because it paralleled the "One Emperor in Rome", whereas previously the fractious nature of politics promoted belief in a diversity of Gods. plus Christianity scavenged the most appealing elements of both Pagan (Greek and Egyptian mainly) and Hebrew religions.

[Loud Whispers]

Three centuries of spread followed by over a thousand of being pushed out does not a success make.

God bless the father, the son and the holy toast.

[mainiac]

Three centuries of spread followed by over a thousand of being pushed out does not a success make.

Yes but the three centuries of success nicely refute the premise that Christianity did not spread to the east because of Zorastrianism.  Christianity and Zorastrianism co-existed just fine for centuries.

[Dutchling]

Posting To Fuck

[Svarte Troner]

It's easy to substitute Jesus and the Saints (band name?) in for the old Gods, especially when you rip most of the festivals and holidays directly off of the old Pagan religions to draw people in. Not to mention everyone's doing it and they're waving a sword around in your face.