The reason why Christianity is so popular.

[Kcnorwood]

People gravitate towards what is mainstream.
Christianity (today) is mainstream.
What is not mainstream... ie unknown...
registers as "suspect' in the majority mind-set.

and Who wants to walk around "suspect" of the majority mindset
that surrounds everything they do in their public life?

I agree with this to a point people tend to follow someone else & the majority rules to some extent. Christianty did come across very brutal the Romans didn't give people a lot of choice. But these days where people drink coffee costing $ 8.00 to $10.00 a cup just to be seen drinking it go figure. People run with the in crowd for some reason.

 

[Smoke]

during the reign of Constantine, persecution became the rule, rather than the exception.

Then it should be easy to give a few specific examples.

 

[emiliano]

What are you not getting? I said that yes, I do agree to a certain extent. If you're not even going to pay attention to the posts, then stop debating. If you want to be so literal in your interpretation of the OP, then you should have just left your answer as "no" and stopped posting. Sheesh. Just because someone doesn't go along with your opinions (which you don't really back up with anything more significant than "because I say so") doesn't make their opinions absurd or illogical. It simply makes you narrow-minded in your blatant dismissal of any ideas that don't match your own. :sarcastic

I am sorry, but in the light of the question posed by the OP, you answer is absurd and not only is not the reason for it popularity but it was and still is a hindered to it expansion and popularity. It isn't that they don't match, it is that is false.

 

[emiliano]

The problem here is that Darkenless has introduced a new Historical event to the theme of the OP, the conversion of Constantine to Christianity that it came about as the result of His mother evangelism, he was convinced that reason for all his great victories over the pagan was that God helped Him, his mother was Christian, so the God that that helped him was our God, that all the honour and glory he achieve was a blessing for God, it does not matter to Darkeless that this cannot be classified as Christian crusade, because the armies that Constantine use to defeat his enemies were mostly pagans.
A struggle for power soon began between Licinius and Constantine, from which Constantine emerged in 324 as a victorious Christian champion. Now emperor of both East and West, he began to implement important administrative reforms.
Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
One of these reforms was to declare Christianity the official religion of his Empire.

 

[emiliano]

I agree with this to a point people tend to follow someone else & the majority rules to some extent. Christianty did come across very brutal the Romans didn't give people a lot of choice. But these days where people drink coffee costing $ 8.00 to $10.00 a cup just to be seen drinking it go figure. People run with the in crowd for some reason.

There is only one reason. Perceived good.:shout

 

[Reasonable Disruption]

well it makes sense that it is so popular because Constantin rounded up all the pagans lined them up and made them decide between Christianity or death, therefore all of the pagan children grew up only knowing a christian god.


its kind of reminiscent of what the Chinese are doing to the Tibetan people. they are coming in and setting up Chinese schools and effectively phasing out Tibetan culture once and for all.

 

[Smoke]

well it makes sense that it is so popular because Constantin rounded up all the pagans lined them up and made them decide between Christianity or death, therefore all of the pagan children grew up only knowing a christian god.

I hope that's your idea of a joke. There's so much nonsense floating around about Constantine that it boggles the mind.

 

[Elessar]

well it makes sense that it is so popular because Constantin rounded up all the pagans lined them up and made them decide between Christianity or death, therefore all of the pagan children grew up only knowing a christian god.

The fact that there were pagan Emperors AFTER Constantine sorta disproves that theory...

 

[DarkSun]

I think this person wants Christianity to be wrong.

 

[gnomon]

well it makes sense that it is so popular because Constantin rounded up all the pagans lined them up and made them decide between Christianity or death, therefore all of the pagan children grew up only knowing a christian god.


its kind of reminiscent of what the Chinese are doing to the Tibetan people. they are coming in and setting up Chinese schools and effectively phasing out Tibetan culture once and for all.

Christians were still persecuted under Constantine. There was no single Christian faith when he converted.

It's more likely that Christianity was able to expand because it started within the urban centers of the Roman empire. It probably gained ground among the merchant classes and the aristocracy thus moving into the political realm by the time of Constantine. It's also likely that the religion had already been adopted and that much of the Christian/pagan mixed traditions started with the common folk. The perception that the Church dictated these changes is not so clear. Why? Because there is not much reason to
1) Have an emperor convert to a faith not already widely accepted among the public
2) That it doesn't make much sense for the Church to impose mixed traditions upon a populace if they had not already started to mix those traditions themselves.

Christianity also gained ground in Africa despite what was happening in Europe but that's another part of the story. There is also the known expansion of Arianism among some of the Germanic tribes. How? What possible political/military power could have forced a conversion among those tribes?

I think the most telling part of this whole Christian vs. pagan concept is that Clovis I converted to Christianity after his military campaigns to unite the various Gaulish tribes out of political reasons. How did the people of Gaul come to convert? As of yet I have not seen a single historian provide evidence that it was through brute force.

I think there is much to the fact that the budding powers within Europe after Rome used the Christian faith for political and military ends. Charlemagne is definitely in the historical record as forcing conversions. But the individual history of other areas of Europe such as the interactions between Bretons and Angles shows a different picture. The spread of Christianity in Ireland does as well.

 

[DarkSun]

All of the crusades aside for one second... wasn't Stalin an atheist?

Religion is the expression of humankind's innate need to be a part of something bigger than oneself. You don't need to be a part of any traditional religion for this aspect of human nature to become apparent - I mean, just look at how some football fans dogmatically follow their team. Or how thousands of people band together at Remeberance day to remember the lives lost during war.

We all believe in something bigger than ourselves... So what is it for you? Your country, your successes, your community, your sport, your pride... Or your God?

So yes... Religion is an inevitable part of human nature and it's here to stay.

Besides, pure religion that has not been twisted for the benefit of any individual group does not hurt people. The problems that religion seem to cause are not a direct result of the religions themselves, but of human perversion, and our rejection of the unknown, of what is different and what we fail to understand. If people are as kind and compassionate as their scriptures teach them to be, then religion should not cause any harm.

Human nature is the problem, and the problems that it poses would exist even without religion. Ironically, religion stems from the Latin word religionem which means "to unify, to bind". Perhaps it could very well still live up to its namesake.

 

[gnomon]

All of the crusades aside for one second... wasn't Stalin an atheist?

When dealing with megalomaniacs such as Stalin (begging the question) it's rather difficult to portray them as part of any primary social group. Hitler was religious but strayed so far from any rendition of Christian belief that to call him one is somewhat moot in that it does not inform us of his character.

 

[TerranIV]

I don't think it was the crusades which made Christianity so popular, they didn't happen until the middle ages.

Christianity became popular mostly because it became the state religion of the Roman Empire after the "conversion" of emperor Constantine. Everyone in all of Rome was forced to practice Christianity.

Pagan holidays like Christmas (which replaced the Roman holiday of the sun "Dies Natalis Solis Invicti" and other solstice holidays) and Easter (which replaced the Pagan holiday of the goddess Eostre). Many of the pagan rituals have been "re-branded" as Christian.

Ever wondered what a bunny has to do with Jesus?

 

[Elessar]

But, then, there are many conversions which happened in almost complete peace, with little to no forcible conversion at all, like the conversion of the British Isles - the peoples of Angland, Kernow, Cymru, Alba and Eire were all very peacefully converted to Christianity in the early part of the Middle Ages (there were, of course, wars between the various peoples in the Isles, but they were almost unrelated to religion). The long British history of religious conflict and war was not truly begun until the Norman Conquest in 1066. Before the Normans, pagan and Christian lived relatively peacefully alongside one another in the Isles Britannic.

 

[darkendless]

Christians were still persecuted under Constantine. There was no single Christian faith when he converted.

It's more likely that Christianity was able to expand because it started within the urban centers of the Roman empire. It probably gained ground among the merchant classes and the aristocracy thus moving into the political realm by the time of Constantine. It's also likely that the religion had already been adopted and that much of the Christian/pagan mixed traditions started with the common folk. The perception that the Church dictated these changes is not so clear. Why? Because there is not much reason to
1) Have an emperor convert to a faith not already widely accepted among the public
2) That it doesn't make much sense for the Church to impose mixed traditions upon a populace if they had not already started to mix those traditions themselves.

Christianity also gained ground in Africa despite what was happening in Europe but that's another part of the story. There is also the known expansion of Arianism among some of the Germanic tribes. How? What possible political/military power could have forced a conversion among those tribes?

I think the most telling part of this whole Christian vs. pagan concept is that Clovis I converted to Christianity after his military campaigns to unite the various Gaulish tribes out of political reasons. How did the people of Gaul come to convert? As of yet I have not seen a single historian provide evidence that it was through brute force.

I think there is much to the fact that the budding powers within Europe after Rome used the Christian faith for political and military ends. Charlemagne is definitely in the historical record as forcing conversions. But the individual history of other areas of Europe such as the interactions between Bretons and Angles shows a different picture. The spread of Christianity in Ireland does as well.

In the first part of his reign it was mostly Christians persecuted, following on a custom of Augustus. It was until the battle of the Milvian Bridge where thereafter he used Christian symbols. Eusebius in The Life of the Blessed Emperor Constantine mentions it, but tends to gloss over the persecution of pagans following legislation effectively closing their temples.

Midnightblue: For some reason Rome became almost entirely Christian, do you think every pagan thought it was a good idea to renounce their belief in their pagan gods?

 

[DarkSun]

When dealing with megalomaniacs such as Stalin (begging the question) it's rather difficult to portray them as part of any primary social group. Hitler was religious but strayed so far from any rendition of Christian belief that to call him one is somewhat moot in that it does not inform us of his character.

Perhaps the same could be said for those responsible for the Crusades.

 

[gnomon]

Perhaps the same could be said for those responsible for the Crusades.

That is true.

The thing with the Crusades is that each one had its own motivation. I believe that the first Crusade was motivated by religious motives. The others....not so much. Also, in all studies of history we have primarily the history of the leaders and other other prominent individuals. They can not be assumed to be accurate reflections of the common people. Also, many given "truths" from history we had in schooling, at least, U.S. schooling, can no longer be trusted to be accurate representations. We know that Paul Revere did not achieve what Longfellow described in his poems. We know that the Children's crusade was not literally a Children's crusade. It was a crusade of various commoners, mainly adult, that went nowhere. We know that there is no recorded incidence of Patrick Henry stating "Give me liberty or give me death.". The phrase is a fabrication of a historian and biographer doing his best to accumulate second hand stories.

 

[gnomon]

In the first part of his reign it was mostly Christians persecuted, following on a custom of Augustus. It was until the battle of the Milvian Bridge where thereafter he used Christian symbols. Eusebius in The Life of the Blessed Emperor Constantine mentions it, but tends to gloss over the persecution of pagans following legislation effectively closing their temples.

Midnightblue: For some reason Rome became almost entirely Christian, do you think every pagan thought it was a good idea to renounce their belief in their pagan gods?

I picked up Eusebius's history of the Church. I probably will not be getting around to studying it until another month from now. Right now, I have to relearn Chemistry to help out a very gorgeous and intelligent friend of mine study. Priorities man. Priorities.

However, I would like to pick up a discussion of this once I get through his work. I'm under the impression that Eusebius is pretty much the only source of the development of the Christian Church from the early 4th century.

 

[darkendless]

I picked up Eusebius's history of the Church. I probably will not be getting around to studying it until another month from now. Right now, I have to relearn Chemistry to help out a very gorgeous and intelligent friend of mine study. Priorities man. Priorities.

However, I would like to pick up a discussion of this once I get through his work. I'm under the impression that Eusebius is pretty much the only source of the development of the Christian Church from the early 4th century.

The Church history by Eusebius is just as biased as Life of Constantine. His Christian bias is so obvious in everything he writes. Just like everyone else in history, say the right things about the right people or else find yourself 6 feet under. Unfortunately historical writers are most reliable after the death of the person they are writing about. However, then, their sources have an oppurtunity to add their own bias.

 

[gnomon]

The Church history by Eusebius is just as biased as Life of Constantine. His Christian bias is so obvious in everything he writes. Just like everyone else in history, say the right things about the right people or else find yourself 6 feet under. Unfortunately historical writers are most reliable after the death of the person they are writing about. However, then, their sources have an oppurtunity to add their own bias.

I read that about him and that modern scholars consider some of his work to be questionable.

It is unfortunate we don't have more. History is the most unfortunate and unforgiving study.