5 ms·

Relatedly, I have been reading an enlightening book: The Triumph of Christianity [0]. It's a very interesting insight into why Christianity took over Europe in

Relatedly, I have been reading an enlightening book: The Triumph of Christianity [0]. It's a very interesting insight into why Christianity took over Europe in the first place. One of the points made is that paganism was a loose confederation of religions that didn't demand exclusivity. Christianity was an evangelical, exclusivist religion which provides a full alternative world view. However, the early Christians, the author alleges, were less educated and oppressed (non intellectuals ). While it may be good that Europe is going secular, I think without a strong, exclusivist moral ideology at the center, Europe will be susceptible to an Evangelical exclusivist ideology (Christinity 2.0). Or, as the book highlights, perhaps the population should be a lot more educated (which Europe seems to be doing well) and this education level sustained across generations. > In the UK, only 7% of young adults identify as Anglican, fewer than the 10% who categorise themselves as Catholic. Young Muslims, at 6%, are on the brink of overtaking those who consider themselves part of the country’s established church. Islam is an Evangelical exclusivist ideology and has strong state backings today. Billions of dollars are used by Islamic states to evangelize the religion. I don't think Christianity has done that in a 100 years or so. If the younger generation is more Muslim than Christian, and the majority is without an exclusivist ideology, and state backed evangelism continues, it will be interesting to see how, over generations, Muslim ideology becomes more mainstream. As a secular humanist, former Muslim, I hope we actually establish secular humanism with religious frevor (make it the state ideology) to make sure human rights and human progress is sustained. [0] https://www.npr.org/2018/03/20/595161200/author-traces-christianitys-path-from-forbidden-religion-to-a-triumph https://www.npr.org/2018/03/20/595161200/author-traces-chris...

thevardanian 9y ago
I honestly think that the whole oppressed conversion theory is wrong, for the most part. For most of Christian, and Islam the history was a top down conversion. Furthermore India, and Hinduism stands in stark contrast to this narrative. Especially considering the whole caste system narrative.
- vowelless 9y ago
  The author cites an early critique of Christianity by a pagan intellectual named Celsus, who criticizes the early Christian evangelists from running away from engaging in intellectual debates. Also one thing to keep in mind is that a very small number of people were actually educated at this time. The vast majority of people were not educated, slaves, etc. He also alleges that it is possible many of the early Christian converts were women, who were shunned from the power structures and oppressed.
  - pmarreck 9y ago
    I was curious about this individual (my new ancient-hero-of-the-day) and came across this https://streetapologist.wordpress.com/2014/11/01/celsus-vs-the-early-christians-177-180-ad/ https://streetapologist.wordpress.com/2014/11/01/celsus-vs-t... for anyone else curious. Also > secular humanist, former Muslim My opinion is not evidence, but here it is anyway: You made the right decision, here.
- yters 9y ago
  A lot of Christian growth came from enslaved or exiled Christians. However, once adopted by the king, then it became more top down. Islam, on the other hand, mostly spread by conquest, hence "religion of the sword."
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > A lot of Christian growth came from enslaved or exiled Christians. However, once adopted by the king, then it became more top down. Once Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire in the 4th C, its spread was largely by conquest and top-down, both within Europe and through European colonialism.
    - yters 9y ago
      Even after the Roman Empire collapsed in that same century?
verylittlemeat 9y ago
"People can't be free to think for themselves because they'll make stupid decisions" I know you're not making that argument specifically but that's sort of what it boils down to right? That bad systems which focus their power will win out over good systems which don't. It's like the argument that keeps coming up in the China VS USA threads where people worry about the US because it handicaps itself in science with its regulations and concerns over ethics. I don't particularly disagree with what you're saying because it feels true but it should be pointed out that it's an awfully nice excuse for people with power to see themselves as benevolent overlords.
- mistermann 9y ago
  The more real (and observable today imho) problem is: in general, people aren't really good at, interested in, or have time for thinking deeply and critically, and some things matter, a lot. So if they can't (or won't) think about these things themselves, and you remove a religious rule, it creates a vacuum where anyone or any "-ism" can enter and replace religion's influence on public behavior.
  - verylittlemeat 9y ago
    What kinds of religious rules do you feel keep which types of behaviors in check? (the ones you see as most important for society) I'm just curious what you consider, not looking for an argument or debate necessarily.
    - mistermann 9y ago
      In general, honesty and following the rules I think correlates to religion. Religion isn't necessary, but I believe something formal is necessary. I see no reason whatsoever to believe that people are going to each come to similar fairly optimum decisions individually, and plenty of reasons to believe they won't.
  - armandososa 9y ago
    It's not the rules, it's about the faith. e.g. If I (honestly) believe that all human beings were made equal in the image of God (whatever that may be) that would affect the way I treat people. Some rules will came out of that belief: like "don't lie" and "don't kill" but, in it's purest form, religion is not about rules, and the fact that people don't know that means that religious institutions have failed.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
liberte82 9y ago
This was a really fancy way of stating that you think the Muslim hordes are invading Europe. You should write for Breitbart.

thevardanian 9y ago

I honestly think that the whole oppressed conversion theory is wrong, for the most part. For most of Christian, and Islam the history was a top down conversion. Furthermore India, and Hinduism stands in stark contrast to this narrative. Especially considering the whole caste system narrative.

vowelless 9y ago
The author cites an early critique of Christianity by a pagan intellectual named Celsus, who criticizes the early Christian evangelists from running away from engaging in intellectual debates. Also one thing to keep in mind is that a very small number of people were actually educated at this time. The vast majority of people were not educated, slaves, etc. He also alleges that it is possible many of the early Christian converts were women, who were shunned from the power structures and oppressed.
- pmarreck 9y ago
  I was curious about this individual (my new ancient-hero-of-the-day) and came across this https://streetapologist.wordpress.com/2014/11/01/celsus-vs-the-early-christians-177-180-ad/ https://streetapologist.wordpress.com/2014/11/01/celsus-vs-t... for anyone else curious. Also > secular humanist, former Muslim My opinion is not evidence, but here it is anyway: You made the right decision, here.
yters 9y ago
A lot of Christian growth came from enslaved or exiled Christians. However, once adopted by the king, then it became more top down. Islam, on the other hand, mostly spread by conquest, hence "religion of the sword."
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > A lot of Christian growth came from enslaved or exiled Christians. However, once adopted by the king, then it became more top down. Once Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire in the 4th C, its spread was largely by conquest and top-down, both within Europe and through European colonialism.
  - yters 9y ago
    Even after the Roman Empire collapsed in that same century?

verylittlemeat 9y ago

"People can't be free to think for themselves because they'll make stupid decisions" I know you're not making that argument specifically but that's sort of what it boils down to right? That bad systems which focus their power will win out over good systems which don't. It's like the argument that keeps coming up in the China VS USA threads where people worry about the US because it handicaps itself in science with its regulations and concerns over ethics. I don't particularly disagree with what you're saying because it feels true but it should be pointed out that it's an awfully nice excuse for people with power to see themselves as benevolent overlords.

mistermann 9y ago
The more real (and observable today imho) problem is: in general, people aren't really good at, interested in, or have time for thinking deeply and critically, and some things matter, a lot. So if they can't (or won't) think about these things themselves, and you remove a religious rule, it creates a vacuum where anyone or any "-ism" can enter and replace religion's influence on public behavior.
- verylittlemeat 9y ago
  What kinds of religious rules do you feel keep which types of behaviors in check? (the ones you see as most important for society) I'm just curious what you consider, not looking for an argument or debate necessarily.
  - mistermann 9y ago
    In general, honesty and following the rules I think correlates to religion. Religion isn't necessary, but I believe something formal is necessary. I see no reason whatsoever to believe that people are going to each come to similar fairly optimum decisions individually, and plenty of reasons to believe they won't.
- armandososa 9y ago
  It's not the rules, it's about the faith. e.g. If I (honestly) believe that all human beings were made equal in the image of God (whatever that may be) that would affect the way I treat people. Some rules will came out of that belief: like "don't lie" and "don't kill" but, in it's purest form, religion is not about rules, and the fact that people don't know that means that religious institutions have failed.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

liberte82 9y ago

This was a really fancy way of stating that you think the Muslim hordes are invading Europe. You should write for Breitbart.