The Spread of Christianity Animated(openculture.com) |
The Spread of Christianity Animated(openculture.com) |
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
[0] https://www.amazon.com/Dominion-Christian-Revolution-Remade-...
North Africa played a very important part in the development of Christianity. Augustine, Tertullian, Jerome and Origen were North Africans. Monasticism evolved in Egypt.
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.
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.
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.
Also, why no Cathars/Albigensians in the south of France during the 12th & 13th centuries?
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.
Not only was it a means for control, but it is a good benchmark seeing how critical humans think.
I would even call it a filter.
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.
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.)
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.
I'd join the Church in a heartbeat to get those things if I thought the foundational concepts were real.
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.
Perhaps we use the sentiment differently?
Like the spread of the black death? I would say its depressing how fast and easy it spread.
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.
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
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.
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.