How come atheists/SJWs always persist with the lie that Christianity was spread through violence?

[Augustus]

It is really not a fair assessment to say that Christianity was spread through violence the way Islam was.

Took 400+ years for the Islamic Empire to become majority Islamic. The land (as with that of every other culture) was won by violence, the spread of Islam within it was painstakingly slow with very low conversion rates in many places.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Saxons were converted at the point of a sword. That's pretty much it. It is really not a fair assessment to say that Christianity was spread through violence the way Islam was.

As was Norway and who knows about the rest of Scandinavia. The entire New World, was done at the "point of the sword" or at the point of the musket. Southern Africa too probably.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Took 400+ years for the Islamic Empire to become majority Islamic. The land (as with that of every other culture) was won by violence, the spread of Islam within it was painstakingly slow with very low conversion rates in many places.

And yet you will find countless Muslims that deny this.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Afterall, it was Islam that started the battles first, not Peter, Paul and the Apostles.

It's learned behavior.

Warner is no religious scholar or historian. He's just a random person who makes videos fear mongering about Islam.

 

[Augustus]

When the Roman empire became Christian there may have been wide scale forced conversion.

There wasn't.

There were restrictions on Pagan practices enforced at times which had an effect, although edicts didn't always carry the force one might think viewing from a modern vantage point.

Think of it this way, Christians were persecuted yet still managed to grow their religion and spread it significantly.

I am not a historian, but I do not see any real problem with this happening.

The problem is a whole lot of land, most sparsely populated, and pre-modern communication and transportation technology.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

As was Norway and who knows about the rest of Scandinavia. The entire New World, was done at the "point of the sword" or at the point of the musket. Southern Africa too probably.

Again, the exception to the rule. Norway was NOT Christianized by force. Europe was missionized by the church, not conquered.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There wasn't.

There were restrictions on Pagan practices enforced at times which had an effect, although edicts didn't always carry the force one might think viewing from a modern vantage point.

Think of it this way, Christians were persecuted yet still managed to grow their religion and spread it significantly.



The problem is a whole lot of land, most sparsely populated, and pre-modern communication and transportation technology.

Yes, a quick check tells one that Christianity spread quickly through Rome despite what the government did. There may have been some violence after it became the official religion of Rome but that violence seems to have been more internal than external. Non-Nicene churches were dealt with harshly at times:

Edict of Thessalonica - Wikipedia

That included confiscating their churches.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, the exception to the rule. Norway was NOT Christianized by force. Europe was missionized by the church, not conquered.

I am not digging it up, but an earlier linked article in this thread explained how it was largely Christianized by force. One needs to remember that often history is sanitized.

 

[Audie]

Not really. Imposition by force was far from the main way that it spread.

How low a threshold do you have for 'high probability'?

For a start, do you exclude from consideration all of the
countries of S and Central America?

Maybe ya gots a low threshold for "majority".

And high threshold for what constiturtes coercion.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I am not digging it up, but an earlier linked article in this thread explained how it was largely Christianized by force. One needs to remember that often history is sanitized.

This is my understanding. I will take the time to find online sources if you ask for them. The conversion of Scandinavia was very slow, taking many centuries.

It began with Anglo-Saxon missionaries making missionary attempts I think in the 700's, which only succeeded spot meal, converting occasional villages, but not whole areas or kingdoms. The adoption of the Christian God actually happened during the age of the Vikings, who learned the religion during their many raids, especially in Normandy and Ireland. However, they did not fully convert, but simply accepted the Christian deity as another god among their many gods. Later, there were kings, especially in Denmark, who tried unsuccessfully to convert people to Christianity by inviting in missionaries etc. Ultimately, it was not until the 1100's if I remember correctly, that Scandinavia really became what could be called Christian.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For a start, do you exclude from consideration all of the
countries of S and Central America?

Maybe ya gots a low threshold for "majority".

And high threshold for what constiturtes coercion.

I thought that was a peaceful use of Conquistadors.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is my understanding. I will take the time to find online sources if you ask for them. The conversion of Scandinavia was very slow, taking many centuries.

It began with Anglo-Saxon missionaries making missionary attempts I think in the 700's, which only succeeded spot meal, converting occasional villages, but not whole areas or kingdoms. The adoption of the Christian God actually happened during the age of the Vikings, who learned the religion during their many raids, especially in Normandy and Ireland. However, they did not fully convert, but simply accepted the Christian deity as another god among their many gods. Later, there were kings, especially in Denmark, who tried unsuccessfully to convert people to Christianity by inviting in missionaries etc. Ultimately, it was not until the 1100's if I remember correctly, that Scandinavia really became what could be called Christian.

It may have had a peaceful start but it did not end that way.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

For a start, do you exclude from consideration all of the
countries of S and Central America?

Maybe ya gots a low threshold for "majority".

And high threshold for what constiturtes coercion.

The NDNs of the Americas were certainly converted by force. However, in N. America, they were replaced by Europeans, and in S America they intermarried with Europeans. IOW, the Americas are largely Christian because they are European, with some exceptions in S America. It was more an instance of political colonization than anything else.

 

[Augustus]

One needs to remember that often history is sanitized.

While it happens, the opposite is far more commonly true across history from all cultures. History wasn't written to be objective, but to promote an agenda and the kind of things that might seem objectionable to modern sensibilities, might well be sources of pride back then.

An example would be the view that early Muslims gave people a conversion, jizya or death ultimatum, when in reality the conquered peoples were unaware they had been conquered by followers of new religion. The pietistic myths and hagiographies arose much later, you will find the same in Christian history a lot too.

Also, the fact that recorded history is biased towards something happening compounds this. For most people, nothing happened most of the time. When we look back over large timescales and focus on individual, localised events it may seem like a lot more is happening to a lot more people than it would have seemed at the time.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It may have had a peaceful start but it did not end that way.

I looked things up to refresh my memory, and the final lap around the track for Denmark had to do with King Canute's conversion. Are you claiming that he forced conversion on his people at the point of a sword, and do you have genuine historical sites to back this?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I looked things up to refresh my memory, and the final lap around the track for Denmark had to do with King Canute's conversion. Are you claiming that he forced conversion on his people at the point of a sword, and do you have genuine historical sites to back this?

I would have to refer to a paper linked earlier in this thread. Maybe later when I am home and on my PC.

 

[Audie]

I looked things up to refresh my memory, and the final lap around the track for Denmark had to do with King Canute's conversion. Are you claiming that he forced conversion on his people at the point of a sword, and do you have genuine historical sites to back this?

No literal sword (point) no coercion?

What do you suppose would happen if the
Party decided that China will new be Christian?

Lead-by-peaceful-example is not it.

China is pc liberal to a fault compared to
Europe in the days of peaceful christianizing.

 

[Augustus]

For a start, do you exclude from consideration all of the
countries of S and Central America?

Maybe ya gots a low threshold for "majority".

They don't need to be excluded. While there was plenty of forced conversion, even in the colonies this was not the majority.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

No literal sword (point) no coercion?

What do you suppose would happen if the
Party decided that China will new be Christian?

Lead-by-peaceful-example is not it.

China is pc liberal to a fault compared to
Europe in the days of peaceful christianizing.

I'm not sure what China has to do with the so-called violent spread of Christianity. In China, Christianity is spreading non-violently. It is the Chinese government that is violently persecuting Christians and other religious groups in their pursuit of an atheist state.

 

[Audie]

I'm not sure what China has to do with the so-called violent spread of Christianity. In China, Christianity is spreading non-violently. It is the Chinese government that is violently persecuting Christians and other religious groups in their pursuit of an atheist state.

It only has to do with an example of what
an authoritarian state does re something so
potentially important as religion.

The European countries for example, had the
people tight in the grip of the church / king power
and were disinclined to accept any free thinking.

Christianity, btw, has limited appeal in China.