4 ms·

"Christianity itself, on the other hand, is almost has nothing to do with politics according to the new testament." Christianity has everything to do with poli

by fsloth 9y ago

"Christianity itself, on the other hand, is almost has nothing to do with politics according to the new testament." Christianity has everything to do with politics. A critical facet of Roman empire were various religious cults. These were effectively replaced by christian service. Constantine's embrace of christianity can be considered as a similar event as Mohammed's ride to Mecca: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great_and_Christianity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great_and_Chri... Where Islam was crafted as a utility to govern Mecca, early Christianity after Constantine was basically crafted with the politics of governing Rome as one of the constraint. Regardless of the piety of early church fathers, their designs for the organization and creed were to govern the lives of people in a very concrete way. Hence - politics. For a thousand year (or so) the Roman Catholic church was the kingmaker in Europe. The rise of lutheranism was as much political movement as religious. While Luther's theology provided the philosophical context, the political driving force were german princes who were envious of the political power and wealth of the catholic church. http://omaryoussefworldhistoryais.blogspot.fi/2011/10/why-did-lutheranism-appeal-to-princes.html http://omaryoussefworldhistoryais.blogspot.fi/2011/10/why-di... I would also like to point out that early Islam was far more tolerant of other creeds than early state christianity.

pbhjpbhj 9y ago
>early Islam was far more tolerant of other creeds Jesus lead armies to murder those who wouldn't join his religion, then realised that he could keep some alive and tax them instead .. so the men then got a choice to convert or pay tax, women and children were still raped and taken as slaves however. Oh wait, that was someone else as reported in other religious texts.
- fsloth 9y ago
  Mohammed was a historical character, Jesus might or might not have been a figment of cults imagination. I would not compare Jesus and Mohammed. If you want to find Muhammeds counterpart in christianity I would really look into the early church fathers, after emperor Constantine. To quote from wikipedia, early muslim conquests did not mind other religions (they were not exactly equal citizens, though): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_other_religions#Early_Muslim_practice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_other_religions#Earl... Then compare this, for example, with Spain's expulsion of Jews: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Jews_from_Spain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Jews_from_Spain Jews were expelled from catholic spain, and the diaspora went to muslim countries, among other places. Late christian sentiment is a bit different thing altogether, as affluent europeans finally started to actually think about the humanistic message in new testament in wider context, which led to termination of slavery and so on. Early christians were probably drawn to this powerful message. When christianity became a state tool, the effective practices diverged to acommodate the needs of the state and power. I'm not raising these as examples to prove moral superiority either way. I'm raising these to point out that to claim one is bigoted in it's first principles while the other is not, or some such generalization, is empirically false. Both muslim and christian civilizations have shown humanistic tendencies as xenophobic and brutal ones as well. Secular economics and politics have been the driving forces of historical development as much as the theological basis of the regionally dominants power theology, if not more so. Organized religion foremost is a form of political control over people. It's complected with cultural identity in a deep, difficult way, but the identity of a people and the currently accepted dogma are not (necessarily) the same thing.

by fsloth 9y ago

pbhjpbhj 9y ago

>early Islam was far more tolerant of other creeds Jesus lead armies to murder those who wouldn't join his religion, then realised that he could keep some alive and tax them instead .. so the men then got a choice to convert or pay tax, women and children were still raped and taken as slaves however. Oh wait, that was someone else as reported in other religious texts.

fsloth 9y ago
Mohammed was a historical character, Jesus might or might not have been a figment of cults imagination. I would not compare Jesus and Mohammed. If you want to find Muhammeds counterpart in christianity I would really look into the early church fathers, after emperor Constantine. To quote from wikipedia, early muslim conquests did not mind other religions (they were not exactly equal citizens, though): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_other_religions#Early_Muslim_practice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_other_religions#Earl... Then compare this, for example, with Spain's expulsion of Jews: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Jews_from_Spain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Jews_from_Spain Jews were expelled from catholic spain, and the diaspora went to muslim countries, among other places. Late christian sentiment is a bit different thing altogether, as affluent europeans finally started to actually think about the humanistic message in new testament in wider context, which led to termination of slavery and so on. Early christians were probably drawn to this powerful message. When christianity became a state tool, the effective practices diverged to acommodate the needs of the state and power. I'm not raising these as examples to prove moral superiority either way. I'm raising these to point out that to claim one is bigoted in it's first principles while the other is not, or some such generalization, is empirically false. Both muslim and christian civilizations have shown humanistic tendencies as xenophobic and brutal ones as well. Secular economics and politics have been the driving forces of historical development as much as the theological basis of the regionally dominants power theology, if not more so. Organized religion foremost is a form of political control over people. It's complected with cultural identity in a deep, difficult way, but the identity of a people and the currently accepted dogma are not (necessarily) the same thing.