• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Why Is Christianity The Biggest Game On The Park?

Ostensibly, Britain is Church of England...
 
One hesitates to plunge into these waters, but...

There is a huge confusion between organised religion - which does in many cases use fear to subjugate its followers - and the actual belief in a God.

As Wayfarer points out, you do not need to go to church to be a Christian. Nor does going to church necessarily make you a Christian.
 
Crookshank said:
Christianity obviously spread throughout the world because of the Romans and then on to America - so no argument there then. :)
Click to expand...

Well, I guess we could do the Monty Python sketch 'what did the Romans ever do for us?'. But Christianity isn't one of their triumphs.

Much of the politic involved in Roman conquest utilised local administration, including religious governance. As the average Roman legion consisted of fellas from no-where near where they were marching to, of necessity there was a great deal of religious tolerance. It was considered bad luck to piss off a local deity, so there was always some accommodation. As has been mentioned previously, the expansion of Christianity through Europe at least didn't occur until long after the Romans left. Even Constantine's conversion probably has more to do with political expediency with a pinch of egotism thrown in.

Let's not forget that what we would consider Christianity isn't exactly what someone a thousand years ago would consider Christianity. As to the original question - why is Christianity the biggest player in the park (or whatever it was) I'd throw a punt on the Reformation having a significant impact, one that the other Abrahamanic religions don't/didn't have, and that's the translations into languages that 'the common man' understood.
 
You have got to admit that if the Romans hadn't made it their religion it wouldn't have gotten anywhere - it would have been stamped out .. end of.. is no more.
 
Crookshank said:
You have got to admit that if the Romans hadn't made it their religion it wouldn't have gotten anywhere - it would have been stamped out .. end of.. is no more.
Click to expand...
But, they did. I doubt that they eventually made Christianity the official State religion on a whim. One thing the Romans were good at, when it came to popular beliefs, assimilating and adapting.
 
Yer.. makes you wonder where Star Trek got the idea for the Borg doesn't it? What with Romans and ... and Germans.. obviously the Romans were Romulans and the Germans were the Borg.. hah.. but yeah the whole assimilating thing.. very political as well.
 
Christianism owes nothing to the Roman Empire ? Really ?
Christianity was made official religion of the Roman Empire at the end of 4th century. The situation may have been unclear before, following Constantine's late conversion. Although Christianism was certainly favored as the religion an emperor should follow. That Julian became known as the Apostate illustrates this. But after Theodosius' edict in 392, celebrations of other religions were outlawed. Only Jews being tolerated. The old religious days of Roman Empire were dead.
Certainly, this gave a decisive impulse to Christianism. Constantine's conversion was a contingent event, but it led the path to a series of events that ended in Christian domination.
 
Much of the politic involved in Roman conquest utilised local administration, including religious governance. As the average Roman legion consisted of fellas from no-where near where they were marching to, of necessity there was a great deal of religious tolerance. It was considered bad luck to piss off a local deity, so there was always some accommodation. As has been mentioned previously, the expansion of Christianity through Europe at least didn't occur until long after the Romans left. Even Constantine's conversion probably has more to do with political expediency with a pinch of egotism thrown in.
Click to expand...

You're certainly right there on both counts, initially during the conquest stages Rome was particularly tolerant of religious diversity. But by the time of Constantine the whole political climate had changed, the Empire was seriously fractured there was contraction rather than expansion, social and political unrest. By this time Christianity had become a very powerful and potentially uniting force. Which as you say is why Constantine was attracted to it.

Also like Judaism Christianity wasn't really met with the same tolerance as other religions, as their rigidly monotheistic nature prevented their followers from participating in the compulsory token state religious practices.

Christianity was certainly fairly widespread in Europe in the Roman era though, there's plenty of archaeological evidence for this. Also prior to it's official acceptance it was even treated more leniently than in the Eastern Empire. The Western Emperors including Constantine's father Constantius refusing to carry out Diocletian's purges.

As you say though what they called Christianity is probably little to nothing to do with our concept of it. I do think there were some commonalities though both essentially being based on Greek tradition and thinking than anything else.
 
I think you put your finger on it. In an expanding empire a monotheistic religion hampered the ability of the Empire - which at that stage was eagerly looking for more manpower and trading opportunities - in assimilating new conquests and client states into the basically economic union that was the Empire. When the Empire in decline and its very existence was under threat the montheisttic religion became a unifying force distinguishing 'us' from 'them'.

It of course ultimatly backfired because Christianity became so sectarian that they were just as likely to fight each other (e.g. the sack of Constantinople by the Crusaders) as to stick together.
 
Cochise said:
It of course ultimatly backfired because Christianity became so sectarian that they were just as likely to fight each other (e.g. the sack of Constantinople by the Crusaders) as to stick together.
Click to expand...

Chirstianity was already very sectarian way before then. Different factions were arguing and bumping each other off even in the early days. The situation was more like the way Monty Python depicted different radical groups in 'The Life of Brian'. The winning sect just happened to survive long enough to build their power base in the Roman empire and then nail it all down into some sort of working order that was used as a template for wider conversion. And even that wasn't watertight from the get-go.
 
Why has there been so little mention of missionairies in this thread? How many hindu or buddhist missionairies went to Africa or South America? Christianity tends to proselytize more than many of the other big religions.
 
Jerry_B said:
Chirstianity was already very sectarian way before then. Different factions were arguing and bumping each other off even in the early days. The situation was more like the way Monty Python depicted different radical groups in 'The Life of Brian'. The winning sect just happened to survive long enough to build their power base in the Roman empire and then nail it all down into some sort of working order that was used as a template for wider conversion. And even that wasn't watertight from the get-go.
Click to expand...

It is important to note how the Empire played a crucial role in the foundation of Christian Creed.
The First Council of Nicaea, as early as 325 AD under Constantine's reign, which built the base of the orthodox-catholic church's canon, and the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (381 AD), were held under the patronage of the emperors. The identification and the entanglement of imperial and religious structures became stronger during the 4th and 5th Century. The emperor had become a prominent and religious figure, probably the most important in his time. Christianism, and more specifically the Church was then the ideology of the Empire. Its strict, intolerant monotheism married well with the growing autocraty of the Emperor. During the 5th Century, the Empire, both its Western and Eastern parts, was directly involved in the repression of "heretics", notably Nestorians, Monophysists and Arians.
In the end, Romans were responsible both for Christian domination and sectarism.
 
I'm not saying the Romans had no influence in the proliferation of Christian, just that it's not the only reason for the success (well, you know what I mean) of Christianity. As the Roman influence is so far back in history, I just feel that there are perhaps more recent developments that have had just as big an influence, if not more, than a change in political policy made almost 1700 years ago.

If you read any modern scholarship regarding Christianity in antiquity, there is a strong bent towards the idea that rather than Christianity being a triumph for the Romans, is exacerbated the decline. It's not even a new idea, (was it Gibbon that did the big rise and fall...thing? I still have about a dozen boxes of books to unpack :? ) but it's being reinforced by new analysis of contemporary texts.

*edit, I really need to start pressing the preview button
 
Analis said:
Jerry_B said:
Chirstianity was already very sectarian way before then. Different factions were arguing and bumping each other off even in the early days. The situation was more like the way Monty Python depicted different radical groups in 'The Life of Brian'. The winning sect just happened to survive long enough to build their power base in the Roman empire and then nail it all down into some sort of working order that was used as a template for wider conversion. And even that wasn't watertight from the get-go.
Click to expand...

It is important to note how the Empire played a crucial role in the foundation of Christian Creed.
The First Council of Nicaea, as early as 325 AD under Constantine's reign, which built the base of the orthodox-catholic church's canon, and the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (381 AD), were held under the patronage of the emperors. The identification and the entanglement of imperial and religious structures became stronger during the 4th and 5th Century. The emperor had become a prominent and religious figure, probably the most important in his time. Christianism, and more specifically the Church was then the ideology of the Empire. Its strict, intolerant monotheism married well with the growing autocraty of the Emperor. During the 5th Century, the Empire, both its Western and Eastern parts, was directly involved in the repression of "heretics", notably Nestorians, Monophysists and Arians.
In the end, Romans were responsible both for Christian domination and sectarism.
Click to expand...

And your point in reference to mine is...?
 
I wonder whether Christian sectarianism has helped or hindered its spread? It's certainly caused an untold amount of death and misery, but that isn't necessarily inimical to spreading it. (I'm thinking sectarianism encourages fanatics who, apart from killing people and apparently being incapable of reading the Gospel, also are driven to convert everyone in sight.)
 
Reason for Christianity's success? Right place, right time and (to some extent) a matter of chance... if the Battle of Poitiers had gone the other way then Islam may have become the dominant faith in Europe.
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
No doubt about it. Christianity is a very popular brand, with easily identifiable symbols and packaging. Being one of the first universal religions off the block, in Europe and the Mediterranean area, certainly helped. Being taken up as the official religion of first the Byzantine and then the Roman Empire, was also a big plus. ...
Dedicated schools of evangelical preachers, sent out to spread the good news, the constant promise of jam tomorrow, or the threat of eternal punishment and the constant imminence of a final reckoning, all played their part. ...
Click to expand...

The first wave of such evangelical preachers consisted of the apostles themselves, under the direction of Jesus.

The apostles: How Jesus' followers founded Christianity

The apostles were 12 of the disciples of Jesus who went on to spread his message and found the early Christian church. After the crucifixion of Jesus in the 1st century, they split up and began to proselytize both the message of Jesus and the concept that he was the son of God. In so doing they expanded the following of this offshoot of Judaism and set out the early tenets of what Christianity would become.

The apostles typically refers to those who were among the original followers of Jesus, although the term apostle, which means "one sent on a mission," according to Merriam-Webster, is sometimes applied to later figures such as St. Paul who also had a big impact as a missionary. Their efforts helped to forge the religious movement that has shaped history and is today followed by around 2.6 billion people today. ...
Click to expand...
FULL STORY: https://www.livescience.com/the-apostles
 
I try to stay away from discussions on religion, money, and politics, but the southern states in the U.S. are the “religious belt” of the U.S.

Christian evangelists are always leaving pamphlets promising eternal life and living forever.

Living forever is a big selling point.

But according to the Pew Research Organization that studies people, religious attendance for services is down for all religions, so is religion losing its hold ?

I am sure disease, war, and death puts a damper on belief in religion.
 
On the contrary, it's the places without disease, war and death that tends to be less religious. Less of an emotional need.
 
charliebrown said:
I try to stay away from discussions on religion, money, and politics, but the southern states in the U.S. are the “religious belt” of the U.S.

Christian evangelists are always leaving pamphlets promising eternal life and living forever.

Living forever is a big selling point.

But according to the Pew Research Organization that studies people, religious attendance for services is down for all religions, so is religion losing its hold ?

I am sure disease, war, and death puts a damper on belief in religion.
Click to expand...
People have now got more complex lives.
 
So true mythopoeika,

People today seem to work 24/7 to pay the bills, and to throw “salt in the wound “ inflation is running away.
 
Frideswide said:
Not, for example, in Scotland.
Click to expand...
Does anyone actually know the right term for Henry VIII's brand of Christianity? Here it's the Church of Wales - but I'd still call it CofE. You can't call it just Protestant because there must be a hundred or more other brands of Protestantity.

It's also a bit odd in Western Europe where Catholic is taken to mean Roman Catholic as if there wasn't other Catholic churches of equal eld - and without quite the same degree of corruption and violence in their past.
 
Cochise said:
Does anyone actually know the right term for Henry VIII's brand of Christianity? Here it's the Church of Wales - but I'd still call it CofE. You can't call it just Protestant because there must be a hundred or more other brands of Protestantity.

It's also a bit odd in Western Europe where Catholic is taken to mean Roman Catholic as if there wasn't other Catholic churches of equal eld - and without quite the same degree of corruption and violence in their past.
Click to expand...
Henry VIII would have said he was a Catholic. Just without the Pope stuff. CofE flavour of Prod is Anglican i suppose
 
JaneD said:
Henry VIII would have said he was a Catholic. Just without the Pope stuff. CofE flavour of Prod is Anglican i suppose
Click to expand...
Anglican. Whatever the smiley is for thumbs up.

I hate the bastards. They wouldn't marry my lady and me in Church - wait for it - because I'd been divorced. Ok, you sanctimonious little shit, why do you think the CofE was founded?

T'missus had been in a relationship longer than mine but not actually married. The bastard had knocked her about. I was saved from disciplining him because he'd been committed as a nutter - apologies - and then committed suicide under circumstances that reflected zero credit on the institutions that should have been protecting him from himself. I trouble to decide about the rights and wrongs of that - he had been committed because he physically assaulted his GP - he'd hit my future wife on many occasions before that but because women do that she'd rolled with it because he 'didn't mean it'. Oh yeah. But that still doesn't mean the system should have been so negligent he killed himself he might have been curable.

I'm sorry, there is a lot of unresolved pain behind lots of this.
 
JaneD said:
Henry VIII would have said he was a Catholic. Just without the Pope stuff. CofE flavour of Prod is Anglican i suppose
Click to expand...
I've always described C of E 'High Church' as Anglo-Catholic, as opposed to Roman Catholic. I believe Henry reverted back to proper Catholicism (as so many do) on his death bed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top