hckrnws
The spread of Christianity, from antiquity until today, on an animated map
(openculture.com)
119
121
by leopoldj
by leopoldj
Intellectually curious conversation is an entirely different thing and is of course welcome on this or any topic.
So, in short, it's like: was unified st thomas christians from st thomas arrival in the 1st century and under church of east since 4th century when it was organised as independent from church of rome till 15th century portuguese arrival and forced latinisations by them leading to coonan cross oath protest, splitting the community into two: one new catholic faction(84 church out of then 116 churches) using the modified east syriac liturgy and the other faction(32 church out of then 116 churches) under patriarch of antioch, adopting the west syriac liturgy locally called the jacobites. The catholic faction mentioned grew into the current syro malabar catholic church. The orthodox jacobite faction underwent another split when british came in the 18th-19th century and tried to create protestant influence, leading to the creation of the marthoma church, which is a protestant church using a protestantised west syriac. In the 18th-19th century times, if I am not wrong, a small faction from the syro malabar catholic church joined the chaldean syrian church, creating a small archdiocese of assyrian church of the east in kerala. Now in the 19th century, a small faction in this jacobite came into communion with vatican keeping the west syriac litury, forming the syro malankara catholic church. At this time in the 19th century the internal conflict regarding whether to be directly under patriarch of antioch came in the jacobites leading to Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church (or Indian Orthodox Church) faction that was mentioned in the comment above.
Mircea Eliade asks how Christianity reinterpreted sacred history, myth, salvation. What does Christianity do with motifs older than itself, such as paradise, rebirth, sacrifice? In A History of Religious Ideas [0], he treats the emergence and development of Christianity, including Judaism, early Christianity, Gnosticism, late antiquity, medieval religious forms and also how it interacted with other traditions. I think it complements quite nicely the geographical spread of Christianity by also clarifying what kind of transformations of religious symbols make it recognisable as Christianity across such different contexts.
There's also "Darwin's Cathedral" [1] that analyses religion as group-organizing system, with a focus on Calvinism. Didn't go through it, but seems relevant. It was recommended by Robert Sapolsky in his Introduction to Human Behavioral Biology lecture series [2].
[0] A History of Religious Ideas - Mircea Eliade
[1] Darwin's Cathedral - David Sloan Wilson
North Africa played a very important part in the development of Christianity. Augustine, Tertullian, Jerome and Origen were North Africans. Monasticism evolved in Egypt.
By this I don’t really mean the specifics of the religion; but rather 1) the idea of universalizing the value all human life and not only certain subsets and 2) a synthesis of ideology and politics with the explicit goal of expanding its domain by means of assimilation, not just conquest.
Now of course the reality didn’t actually play out exactly along those lines, but I think a similar sort of movement probably would have occurred across the Roman Empire, had Christianity not specifically grown.
In other words I have a hard time imagining that the world would have continued with Roman values indefinitely. The world was changing and Christianity was as much a consequence as a cause.
Very interesting to consider in any case!
[0] https://www.amazon.com/Dominion-Christian-Revolution-Remade-...
Where did Christianity come from in Tibet? If I'm reading it correctly, around 1100AD there seems to be a large number of Christians near Lhasa. And then around 1266 a majority Christian region around (I think) Mongolia suddenly gets wiped out.
Christianity gradually spread further into Asia, but the rise of Islam severed the contact between the Church of the East and Western Christianity. Mongols had their own shamanistic religion, but many of their tribes had also become Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist. The Mongol Empire tolerated most religions, and individual leaders often favored one religion or another. When the empire fragmented, three of the major khanates chose Islam and the fourth chose Buddhism, while Christianity largely faded away in the Asian parts of the empire.
[dead]
The impact of religion on a lot of humans like 'everyone who isn't following the norm of religion: woman not making kids...' etc. is something you should always clarify with topics like this especially in a context were its not clear what the general consensus is.
Rape is bad, done very little to be discussed for example.
Also, why no Cathars/Albigensians in the south of France during the 12th & 13th centuries?
The exact opposite of what we tend to think.
I’m not really sure to what extent this is accurate, though, since those platforms are obviously shaped by my own algorithm. For example, Instagram knows I’m Catholic, so it tends to show me Catholic-positive content.
Does anyone know of a reliable source where I can check the actual numbers? I’m especially curious about Gen Z, since it seems to be relatively pro-Christian.
Also 'martyrdom' of St.Thomas is debated. The earliest mention of martyrdom of St.Thomas originate from 16th century portugese missionaries who operated in india at that time. not backed by any evidence.
The ramban pattu of st thomas christians mention about his arrival in malabar and the conversion of natives and jews. Martyrdom of st thomas in mylapore is not debated since no other place on earth claims that event, and it's usually attributed to his remains being later transported to edessa. None of these things originated from 16th century portuguese missionaries, and it has all existed long before that.
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
Lewis the apologist?
Bach the "who pays for music around here? OK, I'll get them to pay me" pop songwriter?
All of these folks living so far apart from each other in time and place that some of them would vitriolically deny being of the same religion as some of the others?
(Bach was an awesome composer, but he needed the money and catered to his audience.)
There is a clear phase in our history which was long and no progress was made "Dark age". In that time religion already existed right?
So what was the speciality of christianity apparently bootstrapping everything else? You could only be religious if you had resources to do so. Could have been filled with something else instead.
Napoleon wrote somewere (i read that in a museum) that education is ncessary to fight religion.
We do not know if it hold us back or not, but it also didn't push us through phases like the dark age.
But religion is primarily for control of the people. Thats why you see a lot of rules in the bible. Like paying 5 silver for raping a woman and having to take her as abride.
Perhaps we use the sentiment differently?
Like the spread of the black death? I would say its depressing how fast and easy it spread.
We do not know what would have happened without religion.
Just because some aspects of it was helpful (perhaps) to our current state, doesn't mean you can be against the whole concept of it. I also do not have to bow down to it or see it as a positive because of it. I can easily call it an evil necessaity.
[dead]
I'm an atheist, but hang out with plenty of Christians (protestants mostly, some catholic) and Muslims, and I have nothing against religion per se, can even see some bright and good things coming out of it, and spent most of my childhood in a church, but I know there are plenty of self-labeled Christian scientific researchers who do practice their religion yet would also call themselves "critical", I can totally see why some folks feels like that's slightly hypocritical or contradicting.
As a separate aside, you may be interested to learn about the Manichean faith, which for a short period rivaled Christianity as a kind of syncretic mix of faiths: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism
I suspect (but am not expert enough to claim) that Christianity's suppression of reasoning-your-way-to-God is a historical artifact of this rivalry. Manichean faith borrowed the ancient Greek concept of the Great Nous and the concept of the "Five Limbs": Reason, Mind, Intelligence, Thought, Understanding.
Many recovering Christians that remain pious, in my experience, retreat to a kind of uber-faith that is not unlike this concept. "I see truth in all religions".
The Christian churches that retained power said: you don't get to determine that.
From the comments here I think I'm going to look into the Indian off shoots. Up until now I've mainly explored through Egyptian, Syrian, and Greek/Russian orthodox friends. I wonder if there is an Indian style church established in the US that would have literature created to be accessible to an American church centric point of view? I've always envied the deep spirituality my Indian Christian/Muslim friends have had, I wonder if exploring the Indian church could help me with that. I did a couple year long study with a Pakistani Muslim friend but I didn't really connect with it, though his beautiful spirituality/groundedness/family beleifs have been a godsend as a life mentor.
Now the migrants of st thomas christians or syrian christians or malankara nasranis community from the state of kerala are present in western nations, including america and have churches there. Currently, the community is split into the following different denominations:
* Syro malabar catholic church - follows a modified east syriac litrugy * Malankara orthodox syrian/malankara jacobite syrian church - follows west syriac litrugy * Syro malankara catholic church - follows a slightly modified west syriac litrugy * Marthoma syrian church - follows a protestantified west syriac
You can check with these churches to know more.
It's not like it was this passive meme that spread because people who encountered it loved it so much they wanted to join.
The big three universalizing religions are Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism.
You can understand a lot of religious history as just those three religions expanding and displacing other belief systems.
Contrast with non-universalizing religions like Judaism, Hinduism, and Shinto.
- Life in the bronze age was very rough, and quality of life in cities was basically inhumane. Women were highly represented among earliest converts, as Christianity comparatively was rather progressive and demanded baseline respect for them. Also, pagan religions of the time, despite cultural significance, didn't promise much of a payoff for plebeians for all their toil. Conversion was easy after Paul pushed the case that they shouldn't have to convert to Judaism, with all that would entail.
- Especially in the early days, this was very much a pacifist religion, in addition to having an apocalyptic fixation. To Rome, "Render therefore unto Cesar the things which are Cesar's" is a handy sentiment for the populace to have. They fought and won several uprisings just from the Jews who wanted their independence (and expected their forthcoming Savior would literally help deliver this), and the vast empire was beginning it's slow decline. Killing Christians and making martyrs out of them didn't make much sense in the long-run.
- There is a magic sauce in universalizing, it extends the shared culture within territories and makes it easier to convince people to wage war for you. Prior, the motivators were mainly tribal/blood connections, and money.
The Jews for their part were content with what they had, Christianity didn't provide much value-added, especially for the "zealots" who were ready to die for freedom. The "Love-thy-neighbor" sentiment is sort of similar to parts of Leviticus, but the cranked up pacifism and relaxed outlook over some rules was a departure. I think the "afterlife" bit was a lot more persuasive for gentiles. Then of course the rituals and conception in the collective consciousness evolved over time, from influences like Augustine and others.
By the time there was a true Christendom, powers that be dropped the (absolute) significance of pacifism, as that was no longer as useful as it was.
Edit - really, someone is asking for a citation that the Islamic conquests happened? Next should ask for a citation that the sky is blue...
This is basic world history, like the discovery of the new world, Alexander the Great's conquests or the Roman empire...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Muslim_conquests
And yes, it happened over 1300 years ago, the first decisive battle was the Battle of Yarmuk, year 636 CE.
Your education seems to be Facebook-centric.
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
There doesn't seem to have been any doctrinal disputes, nor any suggestion that British and Irish Christianity was in any way separate from the Church of Rome.
Another good one is A Secular Age, although it's on a much longer timeline. It tracks the shift of Christianity from ±1500 to the present and what it will likely be in the near future.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Just south of there is the famous tree of Boniface ?
> the battles were so bloody that the Christian victors not only converted the conquered
Who do you think 'conquered' the Swedes, some continental Frenchman? Their own kings converted, and thereafter converted their countrymen. And the first such Christian king, Olof Skötkonung, inherited the throne -- he didn't conquer it.
thank God the world has moved past this kind of 2010s New Atheism.
Yes, it does feed a spiritual need but is's absolutely about control. The current US administration is guided by Project 2025 which wants God to govern (so to speak).
I spend a lot of time thinking about religion, and most of that is anger/fear over the religious zealots who want to control everybody else.
well, now you're just revealing that you don't understand the religion of Christianity at all
This is control.
I only started to question this when I was 14 and i do remember that I had the empiphany that its okay that i might go to a hell. Then i questioned what hell would even be.
Christianity literaly controlled me through this garbage.
And its also the fault of Christian priests that apparently 'i don't understand the religion of christianity'.
Ah yes the 5 silver is a old testament thing, plenty of weird stuff in the new testament as well.
And lets not ignore the basic fact, that for Christians woman are second class citizen.
I just stoped accepting to be that ignorant and I prefer to see woman as equal, also homosexual people and co. The bishop of passau, btw. is not. He doesn't like the 'different'.
The Dark Ages are kind of a myth. The Eastern Roman Empire (aka. Byzantine Empire) existed through the whole time period up to the beginning of the Renaissance. And while some parts of Western Europe were "dark" (mainly due to Viking and Islamic invasions), Western Europe wasn't and isn't the whole world.
Conversely, a lot of the writings of the Antiquity are preserved, in large part due to Middle Eastern scholars. The Dark Ages aren't a myth, but rather what is meant by "dark" is misunderstood.
[deleted]
Indoctrination gives you a worldview before you can question things. Its a vocal virus.
My mother left the christian church when she was 65 with the sentence "THese old white man don't have to tell me what i can do". And the context was a cousin of us coming out as a lesbian.
I'd join the Church in a heartbeat to get those things if I thought the foundational concepts were real.
Also, this is pretty ignorant of the fact that one of the most significant theological and philosophical movements of recent western history was the Reformation, which was specifically staked on the claim that "reasoning-your-way-to-God" was a fundamental right and responsibility of all believers, not just a limited caste of priests. This had implications far beyond theology, and is arguably the foundation of most western ideas of self-determination to begin with.
Also a valid argument about the Reformation. Although, by that point Christianity (via the Catholic variant) was so dominant in Europe that I daresay that it was suffering from centuries of too-big-to-fail and was ripe for disruption. Almost an IBM meeting its PC-clone moment. Which is not to dismiss that it was a profound effect upon world history. Rather that the Reformation was the backswing against a great degree of intellectual intolerance from Rome. That the Reformation succeeded doesn't negate the fundamental anti-reasoning bend of the Church at that time.
No, the battle itself isn't genocide. But generally invading a country and defeating the defenders is a precursor to slaughtering civilians, aka. genocide.
In the case of the Middle East, they were Greek/Syriac/Coptic and Christian, then they were conquered, then they were Arab and Muslim. Demographic changes like that that accompany an invasion aren't exactly a coincidence.
https://www.firstpost.com/opinion-news-expert-views-news-ana...
Because hindus are not of the people of the book (jews, christians and zoroastrians), they weren't offered the choice of becoming dhimmis (pay jizya, 2nd class status), but the choices were convert to islam or muslims would fight you.
> Who do you think 'conquered' the Swedes
How can this written exchange now bring light to the subject?
I would say, infighting among fierce raiders was vanquished by organized and better equipped men to establish Nations. Tribal one-upmanship was/is rampant. I am touching a complicated topic over very long time periods. The educated Danes I know, do study French and Latin, actually.. but this is now and quite a lot of Danes moved to the USA a hundred years ago.
That being said, the way anti-religion ppl talk about "control" is so profoundly sloppy and underdefined that it's entirely meaningless. If I try to stop someone from shooting me, am I trying to control them? If I change the the youtube algorithm, did I control them? If I spread a bunch of malaria-resistent mosquitos around, did I control them?
Christianity is evangelical because it believes what it's doing is good and should be shared. If you can only conceptualize this as "control", then I feel sorry that you've internalized the worst and most misery-inducing parts of the last 100 years of western philosophy.
This evangelical quality is a feature of many world religions, including the ones that don't normally get called religion, like the New Atheism movement.
Not a religion, not a faith. It's simply well-publicized challenging of religion.
I think that you only see it as such because of how you see the world, but Dawkins, Harris, et al are not my leaders and I strongly disagree with several of their positions.
Also relevant here is that the concept of "religion" itself was introduced very recently in the 16th and 17th centuries, and seems to have been created so that specific groups of people could consider their own activities as being non-religious. See Before Religion by Nongbri.
The Dark Ages refer specifically to Western/Central Europe, so without Byzantium. Byzantium and the Islamic kingdoms were very much thriving, intellectually and culturally, in that period.
Equally, "parts of Europe" weren't dark because of "Vikings and Muslims": the reasons were multiple, from the fall of the Western Roman Empire, to infighting, to poverty, and to religion.
From your comments elsewhere however I understand you simply have a very caricatural view of Muslims and use them as a historical scapegoat.
Jizya does not mean second class status; and non-People of the Book are not forced to convert (neither are People of the Book).
[dead]
While it's nice to be vindicated, I'd much rather we live in the same universe and this is why I try to engage. I saw dang's warning about this is a flamebait topic, but I need to stress a couple points:
* I'm in no way trying to attack *anyones* spiritual beliefs
* I'm not trying to denigrate their religion of choice
* I *am* trying to point out the nature of their religion in regards to outsiders
That said, drug abuse can happen and it can spread in society in a very unhealthy way. My point analogy is: let people do what they want but let's not have a public health crisis with people overdosing in the streets.
It's a crude analogy, but it's the best I've got for the moment.
I think you see my comments as an attack and that I am "the enemy", but I'm not. I just want to be able to live my life the way I choose to, rather than by somebody claiming to speak for God.
What is the analysis? What is the behavior? I'm genuinely curious. Help me see what I am apparently blind to seeing.
[dead]