6 ms·

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.

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?
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > Even after the Roman Empire collapsed in that same century? It didn't. It split shortly after, and the post-split Western Empire collapsed nearly a century later, the Eastern Empire about a millenium after that, and both had top-down imposed Christianity throughout their domains before falling, as did many of their successors.
      - yters 9y ago
        How can you explain European Christianity with top down imposed rule if the Western Empire collapsed before the medieval ages? What is doing the imposing?
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        > How can you explain European Christianity with top down imposed rule if the Western Empire collapsed before the medieval ages? Much of it by Francia, whose first King converted to Christianity in 496, and which rapidly became the dominant power in Western Europe.
        masonic 9y ago
        Much of it by Francia, whose first King converted to Christianity in 496 ... which is 20 years after the Western empire fell.
        icebraining 9y ago
        Many peoples converted to fall on the good graces of the eastern Roman empire and stop being trampled on so much. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization_of_Bulgaria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization_of_Bulgaria
lbotos 9y ago
I'm naive and happy to learn more, but my understanding is the "top down" conversion was for control, no? It's much easier to control an empire if everyone agrees to the same set of rules?
kamaal 9y ago
India, what you know of today, isn't India what existed before Islam or christianity started spreading into Asia. The historical India, is now split over Afghanistan, Pakistan, Certain parts of Iran, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Certain parts of Tibet and Bhutan. Bulk of those countries now is populated mostly by Muslims, Christians and Buddhist. The Muslim and Christian population in India itself is >15%. So >50% of the original population, moved to new religions. And you keep hearing of people moving to other religions from Hinduism all the time. This is a major source of political strife in India today. The caste system did/is doing enormous irreparable damage to the Indian society and has done over the ages. The moment any new religion was available people have moved on to it in mass numbers. The oppressed people always move on to what works for them. Don't blame them, nobody changes their identity that easily. Its only when things go beyond bearable do people make these decisions. And beyond all any conversion to a new religion is a late process, the early process involves divorce from the existing religion. You can't stop change of heart.
- amriksohata 9y ago
  Agreed though the caste system was exploited by the British to divide and rule, the upper caste brahmins used to be poor beggars that the other castes would goto for advise and the British saw this and corrupted them as they saw they had authority

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?
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Even after the Roman Empire collapsed in that same century? It didn't. It split shortly after, and the post-split Western Empire collapsed nearly a century later, the Eastern Empire about a millenium after that, and both had top-down imposed Christianity throughout their domains before falling, as did many of their successors.
    - yters 9y ago
      How can you explain European Christianity with top down imposed rule if the Western Empire collapsed before the medieval ages? What is doing the imposing?
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > How can you explain European Christianity with top down imposed rule if the Western Empire collapsed before the medieval ages? Much of it by Francia, whose first King converted to Christianity in 496, and which rapidly became the dominant power in Western Europe.
        masonic 9y ago
        Much of it by Francia, whose first King converted to Christianity in 496 ... which is 20 years after the Western empire fell.
      - icebraining 9y ago
        Many peoples converted to fall on the good graces of the eastern Roman empire and stop being trampled on so much. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization_of_Bulgaria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization_of_Bulgaria

lbotos 9y ago

I'm naive and happy to learn more, but my understanding is the "top down" conversion was for control, no? It's much easier to control an empire if everyone agrees to the same set of rules?

kamaal 9y ago

India, what you know of today, isn't India what existed before Islam or christianity started spreading into Asia. The historical India, is now split over Afghanistan, Pakistan, Certain parts of Iran, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Certain parts of Tibet and Bhutan. Bulk of those countries now is populated mostly by Muslims, Christians and Buddhist. The Muslim and Christian population in India itself is >15%. So >50% of the original population, moved to new religions. And you keep hearing of people moving to other religions from Hinduism all the time. This is a major source of political strife in India today. The caste system did/is doing enormous irreparable damage to the Indian society and has done over the ages. The moment any new religion was available people have moved on to it in mass numbers. The oppressed people always move on to what works for them. Don't blame them, nobody changes their identity that easily. Its only when things go beyond bearable do people make these decisions. And beyond all any conversion to a new religion is a late process, the early process involves divorce from the existing religion. You can't stop change of heart.

amriksohata 9y ago
Agreed though the caste system was exploited by the British to divide and rule, the upper caste brahmins used to be poor beggars that the other castes would goto for advise and the British saw this and corrupted them as they saw they had authority