Why did Europeans abandon their traditions and way of life for a religion that originated in the Middle East?
Spiritual decay really.
>>356466
Where it was a deliberated choice, it was for the advantages of literacy.
>>356466
Christianity, as with all religions, started in one tiny place, when the rest of the earth was populated by a wildly marvelous diversity of religious beliefs—and yet, curiously enough, the concept of warfare over religious differences was virtually nonexistent. Most people in ancient times believed it was proper to respect the gods of other peoples. This changed on a global scale when Christianity was spread, quite literally, by the sword. Those who attempted to assert their religious differences were harassed, tortured, robbed of their land and belongings, even killed. Before it achieved political power, Christianity was a small sect, a heresy against the Jewish faith, that had to accept equality among all the other religions of the Roman Empire. Yet it was the first religion to openly attack the religions of other people as false (the Jews, at least, were a little more tactful). Needless to say, Christianity only truly flourished when it had the ability to eliminate the competition—when it had the full support of Rome’s Emperors after 313 A.D., and when, in 395 A.D., every religion other than Christianity was actually outlawed. Through force and decree Christianity was immersed in the cultural surroundings of lands near and far, and in an environment where it was widely accepted, if not the only thing accepted, it spread and planted itself among subjugated peoples. As kids grew up taking Christian ideas for granted, they often did not realize that only a few generations ago those ideas were entirely alien.
Cont.
>>356487
Colonization of the world, more often than not by robbery and warfare, spread Christianity into the Americas and other corners of the earth, just as Islam was spread throughout Asia and Africa. It is not a coincidence that the two most widespread religions in the world today are the most warlike and intolerant religions in history. Before the rise of Christianity, religious tolerance, including a large degree of religious freedom, was not only custom but in many ways law under the Roman and Persian empires. They conquered for greed and power, rarely for any declared religious reasons, and actually sought to integrate foreign religions into their civilization, rather than seeking to destroy them. People were generally not killed because they practiced a different religion. Indeed, the Christians were persecuted for denying that the popular gods existed—not for following a different religion. In other words, Christians were persecuted for being intolerant.
Such absolute religious intolerance is an idea that found its earliest expression in the Old Testament, where the Hebrew tribe depicts itself waging a campaign of genocide on the Palestinian peoples to steal their land. They justified this heinous behavior on the grounds that people not chosen by their god were wicked and therefore did not deserve to live or keep their land. In effect, the wholesale slaughter of the Palestinian peoples, eradicating their race with the Jew’s own Final Solution, was the direct result of a policy of religious superiority and divine right. Joshua 6-11 tells the sad tale, and one need only read it and consider the point of view of the Palestinians who were simply defending their wives and children and the homes they had built and the fields they had labored for. The actions of the Hebrews can easily be compared with the American genocide of its native peoples—or even, ironically, the Nazi Holocaust.
Cont.
>>356490
With the radical advent of Christianity, this self-righteous intolerance was borrowed from the Jews, and a new twist was added. The conversion of infidels by any means possible became the new-found calling card of religious fervor, and this new experiment in human culture spread like wildfire. By its very nature, how could it not have? Islam followed suit, conquering half the world in brutal warfare and, much like its Christian counterpart, it developed a new and convenient survival characteristic: the destruction of all images and practices attributed to other religions. Muslims destroyed millions of statues and paintings in India and Africa, and forced conversion under pain of death (or by more subtle tricks: like taxing only non-Muslims), while the Catholic Church busily burned books along with pagans, shattering statues and defacing or destroying pagan art—or converting it to Christian use. Laws against pagan practices and heretics were in full force throughout Europe by the sixth century, and as long as those laws were in place it was impossible for anyone to refuse the tenets of Christianity and expect to keep their property or their life.
Many cultures were won merely by converting their kings or chieftains, who, in return, required their subjects to adopt the new faith of their ruler. Still others mistook the numerical and technological superiority of their conquerors as evidence that they had the better god. Thus, the spread of Christianity was not due to its truth, God’s grace, or its unique attractiveness to foreign people. Simply imagine two competing religious points of view, one holding the idea that other religions are to be respected and that war is justified only in defense, the other holding that war is justified in converting infidels to the only true faith, and that this faith must by its very calling be spread across the world. Which religion will survive and grow, and which will be stamped out and forgotten?
>>356495
>>356490
>>356487
So that is how Christianity got in our backyard. It is a logical result of cultural evolution. The ultimate memetic virus, it developed unique characteristics ideal for its survival and domination. It had by its very nature a calling to spread itself throughout the world, and it rejected, even to the point of physical obliteration, alternative religious views. This demeanor still resides deep within Christian thought today. Christians view their faith and ideology as “right” and all other religions as just superstitions, whose followers are misguided—or misled by Satan, as many Christians still seriously believe—even though they know virtually nothing about those other religions, and hardly much more about their own. Ultimately, most Christians generally accept the “fact” that non-Christians will not be saved, since by definition “salvation” belongs only to those who have faith in Christ (this is the very heart of the New Testament teaching, as stated in Matthew 10:28-40, 12:30-32, Mark 16:16, John 14:6, etc.).
Pagan gods were way more interesting too.
I mean, they're just as much bullshit as the Abrahamic god, but it would have been nice for us to hold onto our culture and traditions. Minus the human sacrifices, of course, assuming that they actually happened and it wasn't just anti-pagan propaganda.
>>356501
who is our?
>>356466
There's a much better spiritual reward. Christians also had more wealth and technology than Northern Europeans, and trade and diplomacy were often difficult without conversion.
>>356466
Seeking out spiritual influence from exotic places like Persia or Egypt wasn't uncommon to the mystery schools in the first couple centuries A.D.
>>356505
Proto-Indo-Europeans.
>>356466
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_the_Christian_Church_in_civilization
>>356470
The rest of the image is just sparse and full of omissions. Then this happens -
>cult of entropy
Actually, it's the cult of progress /against/ entropy.
Because some memes are fitter than others.
>>356470
This and coercion, mostly coercion.
>>356547
>survival of the dankest
>>356497
Insightful, thank you
>>356466
ask charlemange
Monotheistic religions are better at surviving than polytheistic ones.
>>356466
I wish they hadn't. Polytheistic religions are so interesting.
Captcha: Historia amsbdge
>>356466
As >>356487 has pointed out in depth, Christianity was by nature expansive, honed to out-compete other faiths. As for why choose an Eastern religion, you're looking at the question backwards. The East was the most culturally developed and diverse area of the planet; a perfect breeding ground for a new strain of religion.
>>358216
Funny how Hinduism/Shintoism/Chinese Folk religions are still around.
oy vey
Through forced coercion and violence mostly
>>356466
europeans mostly originated in the middle east.
>>356501
They totally happened.
>>358476
No.
>>358486
>this argument
Sometimes i hate this board
>>356466
They didn't abandon traditions
>>356501
>Pagan gods were way more interesting too.
That's just because you weren't raised with them. If you were then the Christian gods would seem pretty interesting.
>>359940
This. What you have to remember about pagan religions they weren't centralized at all. Christianity was much more centralized so it had more resources to spread, and eventually force. And where it couldn't force itself, it absorbed the original beliefs into itself. This is why some parts of Europe has "christian" holidays while other parts don't.
![yule-goat-julbocken-christmas-illustration-illustrator-david-procter[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/e6JHdZR.jpg "yule-goat-julbocken-christmas-illustration-illustrator-david-procter[1].jpg")
>>356466
> Why did Europeans abandon their traditions and way of life for a religion that originated in the Middle East?
You don't have to abandon your tradition and way of life just because you adopt a new religion. Noric countries don't celebrate Christmas but Yule. And the Yule goat giving away presents where the norm, say, 30 years ago.
>>356470
>change is decay because muh feels
>>356487
>>356490
>>356495
This is very well written. Is it from a book? If so, what's the source?
>>358614
You can't do any construction in a bog in northern Europe without digging up at least one mummified body that was sacrificed thousands of years ago.
>muh paganism that achieved fuck all Rome and Greece aside
LMAO
>>361024
>my point stands if we ignore all these things that contradict it
>>358298
Hinduism is actually monotheistic, Anon. All of their gods are all part of one god. Shintoism/Chinese folk religions are mostly kept alive for traditional reasons.
>>361065
the retard is obviously a /pol/tard so he means Asatru and norse ''civilization'' aka living in africa tier huts is hardly impressive
I'm super dumb but is he saying that Christianity came from Islam? Because that is supper wrong.
>>361230
>I'm super dumb
We know.
>is he saying that Christianity came from Islam?
No, merely pointing out that the origins of Christianity are Semitic. Did you not know Jesus was a Jew in the middle east?
>>359970
I grew up in India and I think polytheism is way more interesting
>multiple gods with their own personalities and stories
>different gods for different things, god of farming, god of war etc
>shrines to these gods scattered around the country intended to be used with different offerings for each one depending on the god
>more holidays and traditions
>each god lives somewhere and has a story for why things are, god of thunder makes lives in the clouds and makes lighting, god of the dead lives underground etc
Whereas monotheism is just
>LOL THIS DUDE JUST DOES LIKE EVERYTHING MAN
and not much more
>>356487
>This changed on a global scale when Christianity was spread, quite literally, by the sword.
I don't recall any Christian army invading Rome or Greece...
>>361742
Who was the "leader" of Greece?
Regardless, to say that Christianity was predominantly spread through violence is patently false. Even most Northerners were peaceably converted thanks to the Anglo-Saxon missions.
>>361755
NO! GERMAN LIES! ODIN PRIDE WORLD WIDE! VIKING RAID NOW!
>>361755
I don't get the connection neo nazis see between vikings and their ideology they didn't even know what the fuck ''race'' is and they raided monasteries for loot not because they hated christians (they fucking worked for them as mercenaries for fucks sake)
>>356466
Eternal bliss in the after life. It's the main selling point of Islams and Christianity
When any sickness could kill you, a noble might flip out and eradicate an entire town on whim, a harvest failure would end in you starving, and you didn't understand why anything happen, the promise of happiness after death is very attractive.
It's why Rome Christianize. Whenever a region became taken by plague, famine or civil war Christian cults would appear.
>>356487
meme response. Christianity spread primarily because of Rome making it state religion, and because of the efforts of a few saints and apostles (We owe Ireland, the Coptics and Armenia/Caucasus/whatever to peaceful proselytizing)
Doesn't mean conquest didn't happen, but that mainly happened in northern Europe (the scandis and slavs refused to convert and were forced to by threat of war) and in Egypt and Iran via Muslim conquest. West Africa, Ethiopia, Afghanistan and South Asia where converted in relative peace.
Only other tradition to ever spread this much was Buddhism, which however didn't have a central authority to is branched out pretty hard. Zoroastrianism was also a contender but it was too ethnic so it never left Iran.
>>361755
Under the rule of Constantine, ~300-330 AD, Christianity was given the rights of free practice in Rome. Over the next 50 years, the Roman emperors progressively got more and more Christian. This continued until in 380 AD when Theodosius made Christianity the Roman State Religion. And from then on, EVERY non-Christian in Rome (and Greece, which was like a mini-Rome) either hid their beliefs or died.
>>361888
>Christianity spread primarily because of Rome making it state religion
That's exactly what the post you responded to says... Can you even read?
>>356487
Judaism didn't spread because Judaism was an ethnic religion. Only Hebrews can be Jews.
Christianity had no such bounds so it was free to preach. We can probably thanks Paul for that, the de-ethnitization of Christianity was a big debate after Jesus died.
>>356490
>was not only custom but in many ways law under the Roman and Persian empires.
> People were generally not killed because they practiced a different religion.
This is a lie. The Romans demanded respect for roman tradition and often ended at odds with some local religions who only respected their own. What the Romans did do was leave people to self-govern.
That said, the Romans had very little tolerance for cults in the core regions, meaning Rome and surrounding Italian cities. Persecution of all religion cults was common place, specially if they did not respect Roman traditions.
The Persians where anti-sectarian as fuck. Zoroastrianism didn't tolerate dissent in any way or form. Manicheaism was destroyed because it was deemed unmoral.
The last Sassanid-Bizantine war was declared a holy war by both sides.
>where the Hebrew tribe depicts itself waging a campaign of genocide on the Palestinian peoples to steal their land
This is bullshit. Palestine didn't exist by then, and Hebrews weren't a distinct tribe until very recently. Hebrews were an offshoot of local Canaanites and proceeded to completely replace them. Palestines are the Hebrews that stayed in Judea / Syria Palestina when the Jews where expelled by the Romans
>>361895
It says it converted primarily by violence. By the time Rome officially Christianize most people in Italy proper were Christian. There was violence, but that violence was merely xenophobia, not a desire to forcefully convert.
The faith then spread to the rest of the empire in the same way the provinces were previously Romanised. nothing new.
>>361969
>The faith then spread to the rest of the empire in the same way the provinces were previously Romanised
i.e. the sword
>>356501
You can start by not calling them Pagan.
>>356466
Mainly because their religions were completely false.
"...while the Resurrection is an affront to naturalism, it is not primarily that. The most formidable pagan critics of Christianity already knew that naturalism is false. Indeed, almost all serious philosophers historically have known that; it was part of the common ground most of them took for granted in their disputes over less fundamental matters.
No, the Resurrection is primarily an affront to the religious rivals of Christianity. It is the point where the tedium of “dialogue” finally ends and the serious business of conversion begins. The Man Who said “I am the Way and the Truth and the Life; no one comes to the Father except through Me” was either raised from the dead or He was not. If He was, then His startling claims received thereby a divine seal of approval, and the only rational response of the non-Christian can be to request baptism."
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.
com/2010/04/meaning-of-resurrection.html
>>356466
By that logic, asatru isn't exactly a European religion either, since it was brought to Europe by Indo-Europeans
>>362007
>Christianity spread because it had amazing miracle claims
Just like Islam!
>>356466
Mainly because Christianity is Greek first and foremost. Next to no Jews became Christians after the original disciples. It was mostly Greek people who became Christians in the early days- by the time the New Testament was finally being written out ( In Greek) Christianity was no longer Jewish or middle eastern.
>>361978
No, aggressive cultural imperialism, y'know, the trademark of Rome since the days of the republic. Why do you think the Romance languages exist?
>>361989
no. The Romans hated cults in Rome and actively persecuted them. they couldn't control what the rest of the empire believed in but they made every effort possible to present their gods as a step above in the divine hierarchy. The Romans didn't demand respect of other religions, they only cared about their own.
>and actually sought to integrate foreign religions into their civilization
This is bullshit too. They just didn't care for them.
The post is also painting Christianity as using only violence and oppression as their means of spreading the faith. This is simply a lie. The Christians used every tactic possible, from pacifism to the sword.
>>356495
> Islam followed suit, conquering half the world in brutal warfare
Trade was arguably the primary factor in the spread of Islam to South Asia and West Africa. West Africa.
the didn't they became catholic...universal...university...a microcosm of everything that exists.
>>356466
Same reason why the ancient middle-easterners abandoned their tribal faiths in favor of babylonian and iranian doom cults.
>>361083
>Shintoism/Chinese folk religions are mostly kept alive for traditional reasons.
Yeah it has nothing to do with the fact that these countries were actually strong enough to repel Foreign invaders
>>361969
>By the time Rome officially Christianize most people in Italy proper were Christian.
Source for this?
>>361755
yes cause destroying their altars, burning, killing and raping them isnt violent
oh wait, are you American?
>>362007
>hurr, only Christianity is true! i mean, ya theres been THOUSANDS of other religions, but none of them claimed any miracles...wait what they did?uh... they were FALSE MIRACLES...yep...all of them... but mine were TRUE! ....hehe...uh please believe me
As a Romanian I have never abandoned my tradition, we kept and died for our orthodoxy just as apostle Andrew passed it to us.
>>356466
Early christianity is so much ellenized it's hard to consider it middle eastern, and catholicism is pretty much pluriform monotheism version of european paganism anyway.
>>356466
Christianity is Roman-Greek and Roman-Latin religion.
>>363935
>>360504
My all time favorite book on the subject
>>356487
>>356490
>>356495
>>356497
Nope, you're wrong. Christianity was spread because Rome adopted it so it was seen as a sign of civilization thus more people adopted it. Also Rome's glory days were gone and people were looking for a much stronger god as they thought the hellenist gods abandoned then. If you want a religion that was actually spread by the sword look at Islam.
Because Rome did first, and Europeans think they're the bearers of the Roman torch.
It's a continuum of cultural exchange that's as old as civilization itself. Notice how the first city states emerged in the middle east and Europeans along with Egyptians started copying that shit.
>>365437
>Nope, you're wrong. Christianity was spread because Rome adopted it so it was seen as a sign of civilization thus more people adopted it.
That's exactly what those posts said though.
>If you want a religion that was actually spread by the sword look at Islam.
Islam and Christianity spread in the exact same ways
>>365437
Just because the Romans made Christianity the state religion doesn't mean everyone in their empire magically and peacefully became Christian. Many pagans in the empire were forcibly converted.
It many not have been a situation where a Christian state conquering a non-Christian one doesn't mean that Christianity wasn't still forced upon people.
>>356523
>it's the cult of progress against entropy
Retard detected.
>>361083
Regardless of what the priestly class will try to say, by popular interpretation it is polytheistic, as they worship many divine figures which interact with one another in less-than-perfect harmony.
I wonder if monoteism just fits empires under centralized rule better than polytheism.
>>369614
You answered your own question when you used 'centralized'. Monotheism is basically nothing more than centralized polytheism
multiple reasons. Some ideas.
One of the first universal religions
Message of peace in a violent world. Christianity certainly did not came with a sword.
Promise of eternal salvation
Appeal to the poor and oppressed
Subversive but at the same time compatible as a state religion.
More believable than seeing the future in a dead sheep.
More appealing to intellectuals than paganism with its cults, superstitions.
A message directed to everyone while paganism was based on secrecy and the privilege of a handful of initiates among the elite.
It proved itself highly adaptable. It might promise peace but it didnt condemn violence either.
Urging its followers to eat with the poor, help where they can and of course evangelize. Paganism did not have this nor judaism. But neithet Buddhism, the first universal religion which tend to look inward for truth rather than towards society. Its true that Buddhism spread largely peacefully but in its homeland India, it eventually lost to Hinduism.
>>369736
>Christianity certainly did not came with a sword.
Kek
>>369799
It came with maces because edged weapons are sinful.
>>369799
Christianity asks devotion and struggle of its discipled. It is neither a religion of peacemakers, but it had no message of war. Certainly not compared to Islam for example.
If you believe otherwise I'm all ears. Dont quote Matthew 10.34 without explanation though.
because europeans are cvcks
>>369736
>Message of peace in a violent world.
This is objectively wrong
>>361559
Christianity has thousands of saints, and figures such as Mary, so you get the variety too. It's not one god sat there being boring.
>>372455
>>369799
>>365486
I think the discrepancy should be made between how Early Christianity spread vs how it spread later on.
Most evidence from the time period before Constantine shows that it was a minor cult that became popular among the slaves and women as a sort of "fuck you" to the Roman aristocracy.
>>364048
>predominately
Can you read?
>>361888
>Only other tradition to ever spread this much was Buddhism
>what is Manichaeism
>>360447
>change is evolution because muh opposite feels
>>372945
I think you mean "improvement". Because evolution literally does just mean change
