Recent comments in /f/history

Jean_Saisrien t1_iz6seig wrote

Psychologically, it is precisely the "harsh" comitment that makes it seems worthwhile. Having a relatively high bar to entry makes you feel like you are part of an elite that can truly give you something valuable and shape your life from top to bottom. Paradoxically, faith being too accomodating take the risk to lose adherents to those that are not as easy-going

2

ConsitutionalHistory t1_iz6r2b4 wrote

It's worth noting that most contemporary religions, to include Christianity, promise 'heaven' after death. Almost all really old religions were based on a need...you pray to the gods for rain, for sunshine, etc. People would 'fall away' from those gods during times of famine, drought, etc. But by post-poning personal fulfillment until after death, Christianity assured itself of things to come in the after life.

8

honeyintherock t1_iz6qi9e wrote

My family is from Harlan, too! A few relatives still live there. It's wild to me that an area dotted with such very small towns has such a very rich and intense history!

The oral history OP referenced is absolutely, overwhelmingly fascinating, if you've not read it I highly recommend it! I don't know what drew that Italian man to compile such a thing, but it's a good thing he did.

40

HappyMonk3y99 t1_iz6qasl wrote

But isn’t it based on facts and evidence that Richard was skilled in warfare? I feel like this is a difference between partial truths and holistic overview rather than accuracy vs inaccuracy. Again the relevance of each varies depending on the context and depth of conversation. If someone were to argue that Richard was a great king based solely on his martial prowess then I absolutely would agree with you, in that context

2

CalvinSays t1_iz6pek8 wrote

Not at all. Christianity was very much syncretism, at least early on. By the time possible syncretism does happen, it was already the culturally favored religion so this wouldn't explain the spread. As for the supposed syncretism like Easter and Christmas this simply wasn't the case. It was ironically propaganda started by Protestants in the 19th century against the Roman Catholic Church. Secularists ran with it to condemn the whole Christian tradition.

The most important work in this regard is Alexander Hislop's the Two Babylons.

1

CalvinSays t1_iz6p146 wrote

Not exactly right. Christianity became tolerated with the Edict of Milan in 313 and certainly became the politically favored religion with the conversion of Constantine but it did not become the official religion of the Roman Empire until Theodosius I declared it it in 380.

25

CalvinSays t1_iz6on2z wrote

As a Christian theologian (in training), my answer is that the expansion of Christianity was guided by the Holy Spirit. But that probably wouldn't be a proper answer for the subreddit.

However, there are many little things that helped Christianity. The first is the inherent urge to evangelize. It is at the core of the religion and expressed clearly in the religious texts (like Matt. 28:18-20). Other religions in the Roman Empire didn't usually have this same urge.

Second, as is noted elsewhere on this subreddit, the Christian religion was not ethnically limited. While this turned some people off, it also allowed the religion to not be limited in who they would accept among the ranks.

Third, perhaps most importantly, was Christianity's mercy within a hostile culture. Children were often left to die of exposure, especially women. Christians would often come and rescue these babies, raising them as their own. Contrary to what people believe today, Christianity was also comparatively very egalitarian both among the classes and among the sexes. The early church was largely composed of slaves, lower class, and women. This appeal to a massive audience within the Roman Empire helped the spread.

10

Sun_At_Meridian t1_iz6n1rk wrote

The Baha’i Faith got smashed with incredible persecution and genocide. In the east, it’s still dangerous to be a Baha’i. However, the structure of the Faith is to spread it in a gentle way over whatever place you can. Members are encouraged to travel internationally and do what is essentially missionary work to help show the world what Baha’is believe. In those places the stories and songs are spread at “firesides” not by keeping it all in a religious building somewhere (although there are places of worship, it’s not where or how the Faith is spread). The Baha’i Faith is one of worlds most rapidly growing religions after only developing in the last 300 years. I think what most successful religions have in common, is that they build on an established religions existing beliefs and by doing it gently. The Baha’i Faith is an Abrahamic religion, building directly on from established Abrahamic religions with the belief that all of the world’s religions actually worship the same God. Edit: it also helps that the laws of the religion are to set aside some money for the Universal House of Justice in your will. Nothing happens without money. Baha’i inheritance laws are actually very interesting.

−1

CK2Noob t1_iz6m330 wrote

Easter and Christmas are not pagan at all. That's a myth that comes from 19th century scholarly opinion and is pretty outdated. If you look at traditional Christmas or Easter celebration nothing about it is pagan. Easter had a long period of fasting with various services during the period and on Easter you would go to Church and celebrate it in Church, with a big meal afterwards (this is where the eucharist would have been consumed as well).

Easter itself comes from the jewish passover tradition, which celebrates Moses taking the Jews out of Egypt to the promised land and saved them from slavery (the paralell being that Christ took His people out of the world and opened up the promised land that is the Kingdom of Heaven to people, and broke the slavery to death and sin). The only thing somewhat pagan about easter is the english name for it, most languages use some variation of "Pascha" which comes from the jewish word for passover.

​

With Christmas it's basically the same thing. The only similarity between Christmas and Saturnalia is roughly the time of year and gift giving. It's just that Saturnalia was a multi-day festival that ended on the 23rd of december. Christmas would also have had a 40 day fasting period before it, so no festivals there. And on Christmas itself you would have gone to Church, then had a big meal afterwards.

​

If you want actual examples of syncretism then things such as the serbian "Slava" tradition is a much better example, not Christmas and and especially not Easter which is extremely abrahamic.

1