Just to throw in another perspective. Most of you have already pointed out that the success of different religions depends on an enormous number of factors, which mainly revolve around politics. Nomad and Layman claim that the success of Christianity results from God's interaction with the believers and the truth of the beliefs.

Isn't there something missing here? What about the psychological benefit of believing Christianity? Isn't it possible that some belief systems are more attractive than others? Isn't it possible that some belief systems have characteristics that better insure their propagation and survival? Isn't this the whole point of the meme concept?

After all, Paul's Christianity which forms the basic theology of Christianity is fairly sophisticated, similar to Plato's ideas. It combines a sophisticated theology with the promise of a glorious eternal life. Christianity is full of hopeful sayings for the poor and oppressed. It encourages obedience to the political leaders. It encourages setting down everything to pass on the news to others. It warns that Christianity will seem foolish at first. It promises that an all-powerful creator of the universe cares and loves for you. It encourages cooperation and sharing (amongst Christians).

It seems to me that when Christianity isn't being spread through conquest, it still has the characteristics that would lead to its spreading anyways. This does not require the beliefs to be true, however. Simply believing something is true is sufficient for deeply affecting your emotions and outlook on life. If your doctor tells you that your cancer has been removed, you will be overjoyed, even if the doctor is mistaken. It's the belief, not the truth of the belief, that affects your state of mind.

I don't doubt that many other religions also have many attributes that lead to their success. Unfortunately, I am only beginning to learn much about them.

I believe that Paul's theology and the missionary zeal of the Christian converts was sufficient to explain the spread of Christianity before it became the state religion. Christianity was a brilliant mix of Hebrew and Greek theology and deserves some credit for its persuasive aspects. The theists need to understand, however, that it is possible for a religious worldview to be enormously appealing yet completely false.

Ulrich

Wait a minute, I wish you Xtians would quit vascilating and stick with an opinion. This thread started out by showing us how amazing it was that Xtianity spread throughout the world, and that it could only have a supernatural explanation. When some people took you to task about significat Xtian failures around the world, you changed your tune. At that point you began harping about how the number of adherents does not legitimize the belief.

Now we have come full circle in that you are pushing more Xtian successes on us and expecting that to somehow legitimize the Xtian belief. Make up your minds already.

I can understand your confusion. Nomad and I seem to be emphasizing different points. I have been clear that what I find most amazing is Christianity's first 300 years. However, I did get off topic.

Ulrich

When you contrast Xtian belief with the bleak Norse mythos it becomes doubly so, yet the Norse beliefs seem to have hung on for a bit longer than other European and Mediterranean Pantheons. This is probably because the Romans did not make it very far into Scandanavian territory.

Christianity may not have conquered Europe with the sword, but Rome did. Once Rome was Christianized, all of Europe became Christian. The ensuing Christian nations had no trouble seeing to it that their religion stay on top at the point of a sword though.

No need for supernatural explanaitions, the natural political/social/economic explanations work just fine.

This could be titled the, "Christianity is more likely to be true because its growth was unique and weird", apologetic method.

Is it a known historical or logical principle that "unique" and "weird" happenings are more likely to be true, or does it just give a warm fuzzy feeling in the tummy?

This could also be labeled: but that might take the wind out of the sails just a bit...



(edited for - Koy)

[This message has been edited by Koyaanisqatsi (edited March 28, 2001).]

Yes, but what's amazing about it? It dead-ended in India and Africa in the first 300 years; it was only successful in areas around the Mediterranean Sea and the Middle East. After that, it nearly always required somebody with weapons and power to introduce it. I think the sole claim it has to non-coerced success since the medieval period is South Korea (apart from reproducing itself through the indoctrination of children, of course). As we have already seen, there is nothing it its spread that is the least bit interesting. Almost all of the features of Christian spread in Europe are replicated in that of Buddhism in Central Asia, China, Japan, and SE Asia, and Hinduism in SE Asia.

The apologists on this thread keep saying that there is something special about this spread, but I don't know what it is. Perhaps you can enlighten us?

Michael


[This message has been edited by turtonm (edited March 29, 2001).]

Michael? Have you ever heard of St. Augustine? Bishop of Hippo in North Africa? How about the Coptic Church, which also happens to be in Africa (Egypt and Ethiopia). You also are aware of the Christians in Sudan right?

Finally, you know that Mohammed drew much of his inspiration from Christianity right?

You mean in Ireland, the Norse countries, Germany, Russia and the like?

Sigh. I am becoming convinced that you do not read our posts Michael, and that is why nothing is sinking in for you. Were the Buddhists widely persectuted or opposed by the governments of the countries they entered? Did Buddhism require people to give up their gods? Or godkings?

I am about ready to give up trying to enlighten you Michael. Each time we demonstrate the uniqueness of Christianity you ignore it. You have demonstrated no understanding of even your own sources and what they say, and I am at a loss as to how to proceed any longer. You have not wished to learn anything, and you have succeeded in spades.

Nomad

Michael? Have you ever heard of St. Augustine? Bishop of Hippo in North Africa? How about the Coptic Church, which also happens to be in Africa (Egypt and Ethiopia). You also are aware of the Christians in Sudan right?

Very, since I've actually met them. As I said, it dead-ended there, in Africa -- how Christian is Africa south of the Sudan? End of discussion.

Finally, you know that Mohammed drew much of his inspiration from Christianity right?

Of course. Why do you think Islam is so brutal?

And Christianity drew on Judaism. What's your point?

[/I]It was only successful in areas around the Mediterranean Sea and the Middle East. After that, it nearly always required somebody with weapons and power to introduce it.[/I]

You mean in Ireland, the Norse countries, Germany, Russia and the like?

Russia: Xtianity proclaimed state religion by Vladimir in 988

Germany: a variety of ways, missionaries, enforced conversion by conquest (Charlemagne and nearby peoples), begun of course, by Charles Martel, the victor of Tours (that basically kept the Arabs out of France). Support of the Frankjish state, with its military power, was crucial.

Norway: Olav, King, was converted in 1013 in France (sources give conflicting stories on Olav's Xtianity) while on an expedition. He later returned to Norway and ordered his subjects to become Xtians, making war on those tribes who would not. Also see the sad tale of Haakon and Eric Bloodaxe, and the attacks on pagans by Eric's sons. Denmark was another top-downer, although the process was gradual and complex. Finland was Xtianized by the Swedish Kings in the 12th century. Denmark's conversion begun by the Ottonian King Henry the Fowler after its conquest.

In all these cases we see the same complex forces at work, missionary activity, force, conquest, and so forth. The spread of Christianity in Europe cannot be reduced to quaint nostrums about "Gee whiz, isn't it unusual and unique!"

Yes, like Russia, Norse countries and Germany. Do you think anybody would pay attention if the King gave the order and didn't back it up with force? Why do you think Xtians, Buddhists and Hindus all concentrated on converting kings?

As for Ireland, Xtianity was there a hundred years or so before Patrick (as I said, there was a leaven of Christians in the old Roman Empire, and they introduced it southern Eire and their cousins across the water). But Patrick used the classic top-down conversion method, convert the nominal High King, named Laoghaire.

If we look at Europe, we see this trend in many places -- top down conversion, followed by enforced Xtianity. The Bulgars (865, Boris I)were converted this way, for example. So were the Norwegians, and others. Peaceful conversion is pretty much a fantasy; missionary activity was often backed by force generally either open or implied. Although missionaries had been active, Christianity in Britain was totally converted by the victory of the Northumbrian king Oswy, who dominated the Midlands and crushed heathen resistance. After summoning a Church council in 664 to determine for Rome over Ireland to run Christianity in Britian, British missionaries in northern Europe had the full support of the Carolingian state and the papacy. Later, the Church was intimately involved with the Germanic emperors, who relied on it,and it on them. In other words, the sword is always there, implied or explicit, as well as the superior organization of the Church, the leaven of Christianity already present in these areas, both Arian, Irish and Roman, the lack of organized opposing religions, and other factors listed earlier in this thread. The reimposition of Christianity in Spain and Sicily was of course accomplished by force.

You'd have done much better if you had picked Iceland…another freebie!…but I was pretty confident in your circumscribed sense of religious history.

Almost all of the features of Christian spread in Europe are replicated in that of Buddhism in Central Asia, China, Japan, and SE Asia, and Hinduism in SE Asia.

Sigh. I am becoming convinced that you don't read our posts Michael, and that is why nothing is sinking in for you. Were the Buddhists widely persectuted or opposed by the governments of the countries they entered? Did Buddhism require people to give up their gods? Or godkings?

Yes, Buddhists were persecuted from time to time. Seven times the Buddhists committed their scriptures to stone, in case their books were destroyed (the first crack, still extant, took 7,000 stone slabs. Nor did Christianity require giving up godking claims, as the Norse sagas posted elsewhere in this thread showed. See also Haile Selassie, Also the claims made for the Merovingian kings. But we've posted some of these already, and you have neither acknowledged nor dealt with them.

Buddhist persecutions began in the fifth century and continued intermittently for centuries after, sometimes because it was an alien religion, but also because the Church was so rich. The Tang emperor, in his official records, said he destroyed 4,600 monasteries, 40,000 shrines, and returned 260,000 monks and nuns to the tax rolls, in 841. As in Xtianity in Europe, kings attemtped to bring Buddhsim under their authority, with varying results.

Buddhism was more tolerant of local beliefs than Xtianity, that's why force, and the backing of an imperial state, was not as necessary in the spread of Buddhism, unlike that of Christianity.

The apologists on this thread keep saying that there is something special about this
spread, but I don't know what it is. Perhaps you can enlighten us?

I am about ready to give up trying to enlighten you Michael. Each time we demonstrate the uniqueness of Christianity you ignore it. You have demonstrated no understanding of even your own sources and what they say, and I am at a loss as to how to proceed any longer. You have not wished to learn anything, and you have succeeded in spades.

Nomad, you have NEVER demonstrated the uniqueness of Christianity's growth in Europe. There isn't anything unique about it. When Buddhism spread into Asia, there were no Buddhists there. Again, when Hinduism spread peacefully in SE Asia, there were no Hindus in the local population to aid it. But when Christianity moved north into Europe out of the old roman empire, there were already Xtians there in many places. Again in the Roman Empire it piggybacked on extant Jewish communities.

• It's interesting to note that early Christianity first spread in those areas where there was a Jewish presence. That is, it spreads in Egypt, it spreads in Syria, it spreads in Asia Minor, it spreads in Greece and Italy. These are precisely areas where we know there were Jewish communities, there were Jewish synagogues and there were Jews in number scattered throughout all these areas.

from
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../diaspora.html

Note how different this is from Buddhism or Hindus, who could not take advantage of extant communities of closely-related believers.

There is nothing very interesting or unusual about the early spread of Christianity in the Roman Empire, and later in northern Europe. It moved the same way other religions have done in other parts of the world, part peaceful conversion of the masses, part top-down conversion, part military force.

I can see why you've given up trying to enlighten me; you lack the learning to do it. Why don't you list some of these unique traits of Christian spread in Roman and early medieval Europe (I am asking for what, the fifth or sixth time on two threads?) and we'll talk about them?

Michael


[This message has been edited by turtonm (edited April 03, 2001).]

Umm... Michael? How in the world does stopped in Africa=established churches in Africa?

That between them these religions dominate much of the world, and for some reason you don't seem to have the foggiest idea of how any of it happened, nor do you appear interested in finding out.

Source please, and I hope you recognize that Christians were there long before Vlad announced his own conversion. This is not hard stuff Michael.

Sources again please (I will keep asking, because each time you have finally dug up a source it demonstrates my point exactly).

Sources for any of these would be nice please.

Well, since I never made this claim, nor did Robson, perhaps if this thread runs long enough you will begin to take history seriously, but I am quickly losing my sense of optimism on this point.

Umm... why should the ruling class be ignored in a conversion Michael? Besides, once you stop with the unsupported assertion that Christianity succeeded only because a king converted to it, we can probably have a serious discussion.

Once again, Christianity was present long before the king converted. Perhaps your suggestion is that kings and nobles be left out of the conversion of the country? On the other hand, why was Christianity so uniformly successful in converting both the people and the kings?

Give me more sources please. This is the quickest way for me to demonstrate that you do not how to actually read them.

Yawn. Do you have any sources at all for any of your assertions Michael? Or are you just consistently reluctant to share them?

See what I mean by not reading our posts (nor your own sources apparently). The source you actually offered said no such thing, and this is why I actually posted from the site. Perhaps you think bold assertions pass for truth. Do better.

Offer the source please.

You mean 5th Century AD or BC?

So returned to tax roles is no different than Christians being killed by the Romans?

I thought you had said that the Buddhists focused on converting kings too. Do you always argue both sides and claim that this proves you right?

So what you are saying, of course, is that Christianity was different. Allow me to help you now. Different means unique. When you fail to understand your own posts we are in very serious difficulty here.

Now, this is interesting. Are you saying that the Jews spread Christianity through the Roman Empire? Where did you learn this?

I see that the program calls this interesting. What I would like to know is if you believe that Jews spread Christianity or not. (We will go into this in more detail after you tell us what you believe).

Note that different means unique Michael.

Could you please reconcile this with the previous sentence. Was Christianity different or not?

So we are back to saying that Christianity is the same. I do hope you will make up your mind and choose a position in your next post.

Let's try again.

Christianity is monotheistic. Buddhism is not. Christianity required its followers to abandon all previous gods. Buddism does not. Christianity took over the Roman Empire inside of 300 years against the opposition of the Imperial state system, not because of it. Christianity caused the Roman emperors to renounce their divinity, and the belief in godkings died in every country in which Christianity took root.

You told us that Christianity made no headway in China, yet your own source places China on the list of countries successfully evangelized. In fact, Christianity has a place in every single continent in the world, and still bears the brunt of religious persecutions in the world. Interestingly, again, when we looked at one of the sources you offered, Christians were heavily persecuted in China (1966-76) right before it again took root and emerged stronger than ever.

By now I realize that you do not see anything as being exceptional about anything religious Michael. Such is your right of course, but as we have seen on this thread, your opinion runs counter to that of genuine historians, and even the few sources you have offered to us thus far.

I find that interesting.

Nomad