>>79954908
No. For 400 years, Christianity spread by the word, not the sword. Then governments coopted the growing religion, and things became more complicated.

Islam failed to spread by the word in Mecca, so Mohammed spread it by the sword since Medina

>>79954908
Nope. Christianity spread within the Roman Empire for hundreds of years before Consrantine adopted it as the state religion.

>>79954908
Charlemagne beheaded 6000 nonbelievers and burned all of their sacred groves. Then you have the Inquisition, and the treatment of Native Americans.

But really, it's all Abrahamics. Seriously, read the bible again sometime.

>>79954908
>Did christianity spread by the sword?

yes, after rome fell

for a lot of folks it was convert or die, loads of people in europe still worshipped trees and shit

>>79954908
Yes. Don't forget the baltic crusades. But hey, when Teutons encountered us, we made a state. So yeah

>>79954908
It spread by aggressive proselytisation, often backed up by military force.

Initially it took advantage of the tolerance of the Romans, who were happy for the locals to worship whichever gods, so long as they paid their taxes. Christianity emerged as a slave morality, providing justification for living in suffering with the promise of a better afterlife. It also promised unity as part of the "chosen" people, as opposed to the heathens. Smart ideological tactic to be a popular religion among undereducated, exploited poor people.

Then it moved up the ranks until Constantine converted, He did this initially to create political stability in Rome and to develop a way of subjugating large numbers of pagans who posed a threat to Rome.

It was pushed across Europe by aggressively zealous missionary raiders. As Europe was beginning to become more interconnected, a religion that could explain unity through one god and a chosen people made more sense than old pagan polytheisms based on tales of long past heroism and fighting against monsters.

Christianity gained political influence and wealth across medieval Europe such that it was not really able to be opposed until the late 16th century, when we get the stirrings of atheism and very early science with Francis Bacon.

In short, Christianity met the theological needs initially of slaves and then the political needs of leaders around Europe. Now its usefulness is receding, except in very poor countries that are going through what Europe went through 1500 years ago.

>>79954908
To some extent mainly kings used it to motivate their troops during conquests and to keep the people in line. The witch trials were also driven mainly by the royalty to gain land and funds since half of all the possessions of people charged with witchcraft went to the king and the other half to the church. Inquisitors were very rarely priests but independent laymen who specialized in finding witches and heretics. If anything the church could be blamed for ignorance of the cultures they encountered and inaction to stop the violence. However had the church tried to stop these actions they would likely have seen a drastic reaction from the royals whom they had to deal with much like when the church of England was formed to allow King Henry VIII to divorce.

>>79954908
yes, from the fall of rome up to the industrial revolution

the difference is that while after that point christianity was predominantly spread by missionaries, islam continued to be spread by violence, and it still is.

>>79954908
yep, christianity spread by force, just check the northern crusades and shit
it was common practice for christians to kill all non-christians when they went conquered cities during the crusades

they did it mostly to other europeans though

>>79955243
You are comparing apples and oranges.

The Native Americans weren't killed for religious reasons, nor were they forced to convert or die.

The Spanish Inquisition killed about 3,000 at most. Along with Charlemagne, that is 9,000.

9,000 is a slow weekend for Islam.