As said earlier, Indo-China and the East Indies all converted to Hinduism at one point
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
As said earlier, Indo-China and the East Indies all converted to Hinduism at one point
That wasn't conversion, but more like long and quiet osmosis. Balinese Hinduism is very unlike the one from India. Rather than converting they borrowed some deities into their own pantheon along with some culture. The likely conduit was the extensive network of trade routes that once pinned India and SE Asia.
There's a decent argument that there is no hindu religion, but rather a bunch of them vaguely grouped together.
Why did Christianity succeed in Armenia, Georgia, and Aksum BEFORE it succeeded in Rome?
What did this faith offer these kingdoms? Armenia and Caucasian Albania jumped on board before the Edict of Milan and all are decades before Theodosius made it the state religion.
Even in Persia, Christianity had a real shot of winning out until the hated Romans made it 'their' thing and thus made it uncool on that side of the border.
What did this faith offer these kingdoms? Armenia and Caucasian Albania jumped on board before the Edict of Milan and all are decades before Theodosius made it the state religion.
Even in Persia, Christianity had a real shot of winning out until the hated Romans made it 'their' thing and thus made it uncool on that side of the border.
Organized Theology with lots of links to other old folk religions in those respective areas, for example Jesus = Horus? Maybe many other stories rung similiar tones in those areas.
It did not. It was proclaimed state religion a few years before being so in Rome, almost simultaneously in the historical perspective, but it was already established and clearly dominant faith in the Mediterranean way before that.
True, I did include that caveat before but not this time. Generally-speaking, Hinduism is not a missionary religion.
These are quite modern phenomena and only form a small part of Hinduism.
I'm not arguing against what you wrote, but I don't find it convincing.
1.) It was decades afterward that Rome proclaimed it the state religion. (Theodosius, not Constantine)
2.) Aksum is not Mediterranean, nor did Christianity have much of any power there. (Jewish groups did)
3.) In the Caucasian kingdoms, Christians certainly existed but in early 4th century they had not supplanted established religions in power. This was something that occurred in the Levant and Egypt certainly, but not yet here.
That is untrue, prior to Constantine Christianity was a small and often persecuted minority. They were certainly not dominant, it was not until well after Constantine that Christians became prevalent in the nobility.
This is exactly my point. Christianity did in fact succeed in the Roman Empire, especially in the Eastern Mediterranean, which was in contact with Aksum and the Caucasus, decades before it was proclaimed s state religion. When the countries you are speaking about adopted Christianity, they weren't really "in advance" compared to the Roman empire. They adopted the dominant religion of the major power next door. Christianity was already dominant for a long time by 381, so this date is not relevant.
This is a bit simplified. Certainly true in 60, but not in the 4th century. I'll just remember you Constantine declared for Christianity because of political calculations, to get support in a civil war(and he won the war btw). That alone shows that Christians were a force to recon with.
No, Constantine converted to Christianity because he had come to believe that God was more powerful than the Pagan pantheon. He did not join Christianity as a political calculation, because Christians were a small and persecuted minority (the persecutions were over in the West where Constantine started out, although the West was also the least Christianised), in the east Christians were far more prevalent, but still merely a small minority who actually were suffering a more intense persecution than ever before, and I believe the current consensus amongst scholars is that said persecution was obtaining results.
It was only after Constantine that Christians became prevalent amongst the nobility and this was entirely because of the Christianity of the court. If he converted to Christianity as a secular political strategy then he was a total idiot. His success as an emperor would seem to argue against that.
Ridiculous. You don't even know Constantine actually NEVER converted. Even the official hagiography states he did it on his deathbed.
the constant persecution did nothing to slow down Christianity, by the time Constantine converted, either on that mythical day or his deathbed, Christianity was already dominating much of the east. Especially in Anatolia.
Jews were persecuted. Christians were not initially. Christians were "persecuted" and "fed to the lions" for crimes they did against Rome and the Jews. And those were scarce incidents. The catacombs were mainly Jewish.
The real persecution was by the Christians on Jews and anyone who did not convert to Christianity for at least the first 700 years.
Christian history is sketchy, don't accept it for what they say it is. They survived based on the "have faith[ie believe] and doubt not". Because when you doubt, you search. And when you search, you find that many things don't add up.
Let me give you an example. It's commonly accepted that St Paul went to Athens to preach Christianity at Areos Pagos. Areos Pagos was the supreme court of Athens and it kept its initial status even after the Romans came to power. The only cases that Areos Pagos handled were murder cases, pederasty and rape. In order to speak there, one must have been charged with one of those felonies. Otherwise it just never happened. And you don't get to 'preach' in a court when you're charged with one of those. Let's skip that stuff though.
Paul allegedly said that the "unknown god" that the Greeks had a temple of in Athens is in fact his god. Fact: There was no "unknown god" temple in Athens. There were several (iirc 6 of them) in the port town, which is where Piraeus is located and their purpose was to serve the sailors who embarked there and could not find a temple of their faith.
We then have the two "instant followers" after Paul's imaginary speech at Areos Pagos. Damaris, a female, which is not a Greek name. Back then, Greeks still had Greek names and not Hebrew. Damaris is a Greek derivative of Thamar, a popular Jewish name. So it's either bad imagination skills by the author of this story or Paul's biggest The other person was said to be Dionysus Aeropagitis. He was supposed to be one of the judges. Fact: A judge did not carry the title of 'Areopagitis'. He'd carry the title 'Archon' (maybe equivalent to lord). No one lived on the rock so the term 'Areopagitis' makes no sense. Such epithets were usually used in a way of mockery.
I'm not even commenting on the inaccuracies of the Athenian beliefs and the contrasts of this alleged speech. Yet all this is considered factual and part of religious history. It's even written in history books. Everything is just vaguely stated as fact. It's part of the "have faith and doubt not" doctrine.
Again, when you comment on the history of Christianity, be sure you are well aware of the era it takes place, the location, any details that could matter as well as cross-referencing as many sources as possible.
What we know as a fact is that Paul did visit Athens and was ridiculed by the Athenian public who listened to him. This was only possible to occur if his speech was in the Athenian Agora/Forum. What we also know is that Paul gathered followers by convincing Jews that the son of god had come. Convincing the rest would be a bit of an issue unless they had something to gain from it. And as I said in an earlier post, it was the perfect tool to destroy Rome from within and it has succeeded.
P.S: Constantine did not convert, he killed his wife and children and he's considered "Great" by Orthodox Christians at least. Some things just don't add up. Theodosius is also called 'great' by Greek Orthodox despite wiping out Greeks for a hobby as well as ripping out anything that had cultural significance related to Greece.
I disagree that many were Christians at that point. The Christians were a vocal minority as Paradox likes to call us who want a Roman era game
But they were vocal alright... Religious fanatics at their majority. Jews were also quite vocal. The Romans just sat and watched. The easier way to explain this is that there was a war happening within Rome between Judaistic factions which Rome could not stop without an uprising so they decided to do as little as possible. The result was that the Christians usually wiped out the Jews while poor Roman citizens and slaves decided to root for the winning team. Just because this happened 1600 years ago it doesn't mean that everyone understood the choice they were making. Religion was never an important decision for people until that time. And most were not aware of the situation, they couldn't see that this was a big decision for the next millenia. You see it even to this day. There are usually 4 types of people. Religious people, irreligious people, militant atheists and people who just say they belong to one religious group because they were brought up by parents who were brought up by their parents saying just that, and participate occassionally at some festivities and events just because everyone else is doing so (Christmas and Easter for Christians). The majority without a doubt belongs in the 4th category. I'd bet that this has always been the case with humans.
He was BAPTIZED on his deathbed. If and when he actually "converted" is uncertain, but it's possible he chose to delay baptism until the end on the theory it would absolve all his sins before death. Also he may have had political reasons for not formally announcing his conversion, though he had clearly become involved with Christianity well before that.
You are ridiculous, I assume you are referring to Eusebius' Vita Constantina? What Constantine did not do until his deathbed was become baptised. He was a Christian long before that, have you not read his 'Oration to the Assembly of the Saints'? Or do you think Constantine somehow wrote that on his deathbed?
Indeed the precise date of his conversion is uncertain (such things always are). But he was clearly and openly a Christian within a few years of the Battle of Milvian Bridge.
Most of the success of Paul and others don't seem to have been among the jews per se but rather the "God Fearers", IE: non-jews who for one reason or another were sympatethic to the faith in the Jewish God but not quite willing (or allowed) to go through the entire conversion process (circumcision included) This seems to have been the core of early christian congregations. The Christians (who were far less strict about the ritualistic aspects than mainstream judaism at the time) would be a hit among those.
That could have been the case in Anatolia, Egypt and the Middle East. It did not apply in Greece nor in Italy. Only the poor were attracted to Christianity. Same way it's the poor that are attracted to Communism*. And in both cases, you need a few key powerful people to promote the ideology. Paul was one for Christianity and eventually Theodosius.
*in fact, from what I understand, the creators of Communism planned to create a 'state of Christ' initially, basing the laws on Jesus' teachings and the result was the communist manifesto some decades later. Not sure on the validity of this information but I saw this from a few sources.
*in fact, from what I understand, the creators of Communism planned to create a 'state of Christ' initially, basing the laws on Jesus' teachings and the result was the communist manifesto some decades later. Not sure on the validity of this information but I saw this from a few sources.
The first communist movements in modern Europe were Christian (the Anabaptists, the Diggers), but that was just a function of all politics being indistinguishable from religion at the time. Christianity itself is politically ambiguous. The peasants and the nobility had their social projects and took whichever aspects of Christianity that fitted to legitimise it. The communism of the Manifesto (and all strands of anarchist communism as well) comes out of the French Revolution and is unrelated.