The religious friction in Eastern Europe and the Near East was less intense than people now make it out to be, since Muslims saw Christianity as a legitimate religion—which, I'm sure, didn't make Christians feel like they were in heaven, but still. Ironically, in some cases, it was the Ottomans who legalized banned denominations of Christianity, allowing people to freely worship in conquered areas.
What the Ottomans would do with a pagan population, or whether they would ever push for forced assimilation, is a big question. Thus, it was possible that the consequences of a no or weak Christianity could have been disastrous.
Re "He understood that Christianity's biggest advantage was organizational. Bishops ran networks. Congregations took care of their poor and buried their dead. Paganism, for all its temples, had never built anything comparable."
This is the primary reason (IMHO, of course) why Christianity was attractive to Roman elites. Of course, they immediately started "improving" Christianity, adding features to worship services that survive today (clerical garb was developed based upon Roman administrative garb, "churches" the buildings anyway based up temples. (Christians met in homes mostly and didn't have a tradition of worship houses.) Lots more about the Roman legacy in the church in the book "Pagan Christianity."
There is almost nothing, full zero, in Christianity, that is not already found in the original Pagan religions. The only real difference between the two rests on the ethnicity of the God. They simply traded off the Persian, Roman, Egyptian, etc, nationalities of the gods and made the new God, Jewish ….. the ultimate birth of antisemitism to follow, based on a lot of resentment, and more, to come.
I'm going to ask a personal question I rarely ask. To be honest, I can't remember the last time I did.
What Christian denomination do you belong to? I get mixed signals, and I want to make sure my comments don't unintentionally offend (or misrepresent) you.
Yikes, Tanner, not Cristian, hesitate to answer the other, lol. You won’t offend, so do your thing with all this religion nonsense we all seem to obsess about. I’m not a blind believer, not a religious fanatic, and I’m pretty much open to doubt about it all!
Ok, you probably guessed on the Jewish question … yeah, I’m that …. But just the basics.
But please know, Tanner, you don’t have to be concerned about possibly offending me when you write on Judaism, ancient or current. I don’t mind the criticism of it, there IS a lot to criticize and question.
So feel free to present your arguments. I will agree and disagree, all in good fun.
This reminds me of the struggle between the Anglican and Catholic churches. History took a similar turn in Britain: Queen Mary I’s Catholic reign was cut short after just five years due to cancer. Had Mary ruled for decades—or had her successor Elizabeth stayed Catholic- Great Britain’s religious identity could look completely different today.
I tend to think that had Julian prevailed, Christianity would have been more diverse, more tolerant and less influential. No way to know, of course.
I agree. Christianity would certainly have continued, but with some competition that had the support of the emperor.
The religious friction in Eastern Europe and the Near East was less intense than people now make it out to be, since Muslims saw Christianity as a legitimate religion—which, I'm sure, didn't make Christians feel like they were in heaven, but still. Ironically, in some cases, it was the Ottomans who legalized banned denominations of Christianity, allowing people to freely worship in conquered areas.
What the Ottomans would do with a pagan population, or whether they would ever push for forced assimilation, is a big question. Thus, it was possible that the consequences of a no or weak Christianity could have been disastrous.
It's still fun to speculate.
Re "He understood that Christianity's biggest advantage was organizational. Bishops ran networks. Congregations took care of their poor and buried their dead. Paganism, for all its temples, had never built anything comparable."
This is the primary reason (IMHO, of course) why Christianity was attractive to Roman elites. Of course, they immediately started "improving" Christianity, adding features to worship services that survive today (clerical garb was developed based upon Roman administrative garb, "churches" the buildings anyway based up temples. (Christians met in homes mostly and didn't have a tradition of worship houses.) Lots more about the Roman legacy in the church in the book "Pagan Christianity."
So true! Paganism was never defeated, but absorbed. That’s why Christian traditions ended up looking so different from Jewish and Islamic ones.
There is almost nothing, full zero, in Christianity, that is not already found in the original Pagan religions. The only real difference between the two rests on the ethnicity of the God. They simply traded off the Persian, Roman, Egyptian, etc, nationalities of the gods and made the new God, Jewish ….. the ultimate birth of antisemitism to follow, based on a lot of resentment, and more, to come.
I'm going to ask a personal question I rarely ask. To be honest, I can't remember the last time I did.
What Christian denomination do you belong to? I get mixed signals, and I want to make sure my comments don't unintentionally offend (or misrepresent) you.
Or are you Jewish?
Yikes, Tanner, not Cristian, hesitate to answer the other, lol. You won’t offend, so do your thing with all this religion nonsense we all seem to obsess about. I’m not a blind believer, not a religious fanatic, and I’m pretty much open to doubt about it all!
Ok, you probably guessed on the Jewish question … yeah, I’m that …. But just the basics.
Sorry for abruptly cutting this conversation, as if I was disappointed in your answer. I was just distracted that day and forgot to reply.
With the knowledge you're giving me now, our previous conversations make more sense.
But please know, Tanner, you don’t have to be concerned about possibly offending me when you write on Judaism, ancient or current. I don’t mind the criticism of it, there IS a lot to criticize and question.
So feel free to present your arguments. I will agree and disagree, all in good fun.
Not convinced that Julian might not have succeeded had he not died so early in his 'work'!
This reminds me of the struggle between the Anglican and Catholic churches. History took a similar turn in Britain: Queen Mary I’s Catholic reign was cut short after just five years due to cancer. Had Mary ruled for decades—or had her successor Elizabeth stayed Catholic- Great Britain’s religious identity could look completely different today.
Re "What if Rome Never SConverted?"
See graphic ... typo?
Thanks for pointing it out. I will have to correct the image.