Decline of Eastern Christianity

[barca]

I recently read an interesting article in USA by Jenkins

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum...lumn19_ST_N.htm

 

He has also written a number of books along the same lines. Has anyone here read any of these?

 

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Wars-Patriarch...s/dp/0061768944

 

http://www.amazon.com/Lost-History-Christi...d_bxgy_b_text_b

[Kosmo]

I recently read an interesting article in USA by Jenkins

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum...lumn19_ST_N.htm

 

This is so wrong, especially because he is justifying present day murder because other morons did it 1 and 1/2 millennium ago!

Hypatia looks like she is the new found hero/martyr of feminism. I bet that her future career will make envious even Spartacus the marxist hero turned in to consumer goods (like Che).

Edited April 22, 2010 by Kosmo

[Melvadius]

This is so wrong, especially because he is justifying present day murder because other morons did it 1 and 1/2 millennium ago!

Hypatia looks like she is the new found hero/martyr of feminism. I bet that her future career will make envious even Spartacus the marxist hero turned in to consumer goods (like Che).

 

I'm not sure that he is justifying murder but I do question his concluding remarks that

Change the circumstances, and any religion, too, can become the basis of a sane and peaceful society.'

I'm not sure that I would necessarily classify any of our modern cultures as being completely 'sane and peaceful' and feel that a lot (although not all) of that is down to the competing influences of various religious authorities over the millenia.

[barca]

This is so wrong, especially because he is justifying present day murder because other morons did it 1 and 1/2 millennium ago!

Hypatia looks like she is the new found hero/martyr of feminism. I bet that her future career will make envious even Spartacus the marxist hero turned in to consumer goods (like Che).

 

 

I agree with Melvadius on this one. I didn't think he was justifying present day murder at all. He was showing how fanatics of any religion can get out of hand and do evil things.

 

Hypatia as a hero/martyr of feminism? I thought of her more as a proponent of reason over faith, regardless of her gender.

[Galba]

Reading this article brings only one rude word to mind.

 

This is not about history ! It's about Apologists Propaganda , that tries to suggest that Christians are no better then Muslim extremists. That under other circumstances we would be like them or they would be like us.

But this is not true.

 

I agree that a lot of the ruling religions today started very violently, but they gradually developed into more humane and tolerant forms of religion that favor tolerance and peace.

But some religions staid the same from the period they started without any strong changes.

[barca]

Reading this article brings only one rude word to mind.

 

This is not about history ! It's about Apologists Propaganda , that tries to suggest that Christians are no better then Muslim extremists. That under other circumstances we would be like them or they would be like us.

But this is not true.

 

I agree that a lot of the ruling religions today started very violently, but they gradually developed into more humane and tolerant forms of religion that favor tolerance and peace.

But some religions staid the same from the period they started without any strong changes.

 

 

Do you think that Islam is still evolving, and will gradually develop into a more tolerant form of religion? I bring this up because Islam is relatively new in the world stage (7th century) compared to Christianity (1st century), Buddhism and Hinduism (several centuries BC)

 

Looking back at the early Christian Emperors such as Constantine and Theodosius, I can see how they envisioned a more stable Christian Empire unified under a single God compared to the pantheon of multiple Pagan Gods. I doubt that they expected the divisiveness that developed in religious controversies surrounding the nature of Christ. It seems to me that much of the Empire's intellectual energy in the 5th century was devoted in trying to resolve these issues, while at the same time they were abdicating much of their political and military responsibilities to the Germanic militias.

[caldrail]

The difference between modern Islam and Christianity has less to do with religion than political history. Christianity grew through a large monolithic empire that formed part of the rubble our foundations are built on. Early christianity was far from a unified whole which shouldn't suprise us given the fertile breeding ground of cults and sects in the ancient world, especially focused in Syria.

 

The reasons that Christianity evolved was not, as many christians might like to assume, a popular and consistent 'message', but rather a political opportunity. With his newly won empire struggling to avoid collapse after the civil wars, Constantine the Great decided that Christianity would be the glue to achieve that end, and although the Council of Nicaea in 325 wasn't the first attempt to unify christian sects (there was another around 75 sometime, I believe) this was the first with imperial support. Constantine tried to get one of his relatives worshipped as Jesus and and rather hypocritically converted on his deathbed. But all the same, christianity for the first time decided which doctrine was correct and what was heresy. It also sensed that as a secondary arm of government it had real powers and privileges over the population of the Roman empire. Marcellinus tells us that the 'roads were filled with galloping priests' as they began to co-operate.

 

Of course christianity was never fully unified as later history demonstrates, but there was a powerful central authority that almost, so very nearly, established a pan-european religious dictatorship at the end of the eleventh century, and the migratory madness of those first crusades demonstrates that very vividly.

 

Islam has not been so political to the best of my knowledge and essentially remains a faith of confederation rather than central authority, which is one reason why it's proving so difficult to establish a rapport with in the anti-americanism we see on tv. Now we should look closely at the rapid expansion of islamic empires in the dark ages that reached Spain. However much their religious beliefs fired their enthusiam for conquest, I doubt very much that the territorial gain in Africa, Asia Minor, and Europe was entirely to spread the Last Word Of God. In much the same was the later Christian crusades, the islamic conquests had at their heart very worldy objectives.

 

It must be apparent that there is some link between a coherent cultural movement and the strength of its religious institutions. The events of the crusades indicate this is only part of the equation, for in worldly conquest we see human greed emerging and with it competitive ambition, and so the supposed allies very soon fell out with each other.

 

Islam is indeed evolving. It has yet to adopt a central organisation, and in order for that to occur, a strong political entity to support it would seem necessary, despite whatever communal cheering at the sniping of American and European assets transpires. It is, however, under pressure to change, to adopt a more conciliatory approach than the fragmented self-discovery of the 80's which saw the fundamentalist regimes of Iran or that of the Taliban in Afghanistan rise to power. Islam would seem then to be at something of a crossroads in our own time. Will it decide to work for peace or Jihad? Will it adopt a universal interpretation of its teachings or remain in the hands of individual movements? On the one hand Islam claims it has much to offer and attempts to bring the world to rights as it sees it, but on the other, refuses to accept responsibility for the infringement of its own principles in the process of shaking its fist.

[Galba]

Do you think that Islam is still evolving, and will gradually develop into a more tolerant form of religion? I bring this up because Islam is relatively new in the world stage (7th century) compared to Christianity (1st century), Buddhism and Hinduism (several centuries BC)

 

Looking back at the early Christian Emperors such as Constantine and Theodosius, I can see how they envisioned a more stable Christian Empire unified under a single God compared to the pantheon of multiple Pagan Gods. I doubt that they expected the divisiveness that developed in religious controversies surrounding the nature of Christ. It seems to me that much of the Empire's intellectual energy in the 5th century was devoted in trying to resolve these issues, while at the same time they were abdicating much of their political and military responsibilities to the Germanic militias.

 

Well it's hard to answer because on the one hand, Christianity and Judaism in their early stages were pretty violent especially when they reached positions of powers.

like Judaism in the land of knahan or later Christianity in the western world. examples are : attacking and conquering knhan because of gods will, and Christians forcing all pagans to convert sometimes forcibly and the Inquisition.

(P.S. notice that i didn't mentioned the Crusades, I don't see it as aggression because of religious intolerance but because these land didn't belonged to the Arabs from first place it was a Part of the Byzantine empire which was Christian.

and sure a lot can say it was Jewish before them and kanhanian even earlier but when the Arabs conquered it the most significant population was Christian).

 

So point is that maybe it was because these religions were new but a lot of the reasons for this aggressions was just common place at those periods and time. Back them it was eat or be eaten today when most of the world is in favor of religious tolerance. like Buddhism and Christianity. I don't see any reason for any other religion to act so aggressive unless it has some other agenda which is not survival.

[barca]

Crusades, I don't see it as aggression[/b] because of religious intolerance but because these land didn't belonged to the Arabs from first place it was a Part of the Byzantine empire which was Christian.

and sure a lot can say it was Jewish before them and kanhanian even earlier but when the Arabs conquered it the most significant population was Christian).

 

Unfortunately the Crusades didn't work out too well for the Byzantines. Alexius Comnenus would have liked to use the Crusaders as allies to reconquer the lost territories of the Byzantine Empire, but they really never worked together very well. The Crusaders went out on their own, and to the surprise of the Byzantines, they actually performed quite well against the Turks. They ended up forming their own little kingdoms with some sort of quasi allegiance to Byzantium, but they certainly were not considered part of the empire.

 

And not all of the Moslems were intolerant. Saladin was thought of as magnanimous victor. Islamic Spain had long been regarded as culture where Islam, Christianity, and Judaism coexisted.

[barca]

Of course christianity was never fully unified as later history demonstrates, but there was a powerful central authority that almost, so very nearly, established a pan-european religious dictatorship at the end of the eleventh century, and the migratory madness of those first crusades demonstrates that very vividly.

 

Islam has not been so political to the best of my knowledge and essentially remains a faith of confederation rather than central authority, which is one reason why it's proving so difficult to establish a rapport with in the anti-americanism we see on tv. Now we should look closely at the rapid expansion of islamic empires in the dark ages that reached Spain. However much their religious beliefs fired their enthusiam for conquest, I doubt very much that the territorial gain in Africa, Asia Minor, and Europe was entirely to spread the Last Word Of God. In much the same was the later Christian crusades, the islamic conquests had at their heart very worldy objectives.

 

The persistence of the Monophysites in the Middle East may have been part of the reason why Islam was able to take hold so easily there. They felt oppressed by Orthodox Christianity and they viewed the Moslems as liberators.

[caldrail]

Unfortunately the Crusades didn't work out too well for the Byzantines. Alexius Comnenus would have liked to use the Crusaders as allies to reconquer the lost territories of the Byzantine Empire, but they really never worked together very well. The Crusaders went out on their own, and to the surprise of the Byzantines, they actually performed quite well against the Turks. They ended up forming their own little kingdoms with some sort of quasi allegiance to Byzantium, but they certainly were not considered part of the empire.

 

And not all of the Moslems were intolerant. Saladin was thought of as magnanimous victor. Islamic Spain had long been regarded as culture where Islam, Christianity, and Judaism coexisted.

Islamic nations prior to the crusades were indeed regarded as centers of science, philosophy, and art. They were also justifiably shocked by the behaviour of the christian invaders. Nonetheless, this cultural pinnacle would only apply to a minority of the population and concentrated in certain areas, leaving the rest of islamic populations as somewhat less enlightened - just the same as anywhere else. The moslem turks of the time were after all responsible for the problems that forced the frustrated Emperor Alexius to write to the Pope asking for military aid. Well... He certainly got some... As for working together, they simply didn't. Faced with huge civil and logistical problems in absorbing so many foreign migrants in one go he had the lot shipped across the Bosphorus as soon as possible and pushed on their way, where the less than sophisticated turks dogged their every weary and heat exhausted step. Further, the byzantines at least once captured objectives from the crusaders, not the moslems. It was almost a three way fight with the byzantines trying to keep the whole problem outside their borders.

[Galba]

People people I find always amusing the way people like to glorify the Muslims at that time.

 

Lets start that the Muslims weren't that scientifically progressed compared to the Roman empire before it's demise. they were merely copycats. Who had enough Brain to translate and absorb all the ideas that they conquered.

All of "their" ideas are merely Greek and Sassanid inventions that they took from the territory's they conquered something that the Europeans failed to do.

 

Just a little example of that is the numbers that we use today "1,2,3,4,5,6..." called Arab numbers which are actually were invented by the Indus. So why are they called the Arab numbers???

well because the Europe didn't had a connection to India but the Arabs did. So they just took some good Ideas from the Chinese (which they had also a border with) some from Europe Some from India and some they just "inhered" from the Empires they Destroyed.

 

Oh and about Christians converting to Islam because of Orthodox oppression please ! I agree there was some, but that wasn't the reason for the "conversation of Christians into Islam".

I don't really want to get into this but her are some interesting facts.

 

In Persia where most of the population was Zoroastrians was forced gradually and by laws and persecution to convert or die. and if you don't believe me read it yourself.

Persecution of Zoroastrians

Need more proof ?! well what about Egypt one of the cradles of Christianity.

A quot from Wikipedia.

Egyptian population remained mainly Christian. However, the gradual conversions to Islam and higher birthrates, murders and forms of coercion over the centuries changed Egypt from a Christian to a largely Muslim country by the end of the 12th century.

 

This passage reminds me of something familiar, a yes Europe.

 

Hope didn't offend anyone...I'm saying that other religions have clean hands, but lets be honest here The Decline of Eastern Christianity wasn't due to it's ideological problems but because they just lost the war (Byzantine) and that was for 3 major reasons 1) Bad Generals 2) Low moral 3) low resources. and all because of a 40 year war with the Sassanid empire which exhausted both empires and permitted the rise of the Muslim Empire.

Edited April 27, 2010 by Galba

[barca]

People people I find always amusing the way people like to glorify the Muslims at that time.

 

That's a ridiculous statement. No one here is trying to glorify Islam.

 

Having said that, I actually agree with most of your other statements. Particularly about the plagiarism with regard to "arabic" numbers which came from India.

 

Why so much of the Eastern Empire fell so quickly to the Arabs is hard to explain. The Battle of Yarmouk was one of the key events that left the Byzantines at their mercy.

Edited April 27, 2010 by barca

[Galba]

People people I find always amusing the way people like to glorify the Muslims at that time.

 

That's a ridiculous statement. No one here is trying to glorify Islam.

 

 

Yes, you are right. I meant by "Muslim" the Arab empire and the different kingdoms that it split into from the periods (650-1400).

 

And I firmly believe that if the Byzantine weren't so exhausted from their Wars with the Sassanid Empire from (602-628) they would have stooped the Arab expansion in it's tracks.

In real life the only solution to stop the Arabs is if the Byzantine had a brilliant general at that time that could have used the limited resources and win, but unfortunately for them they didn't have one at that time.