Rome before Christianity

**~~vsdoc~~** · 12 Oct 11,, 08:30

You have a point there. Though speaking of conversion and the balance of world power, I have never really understood the underlying need to get as many people to your side of the belief divide as possible. Religion has never really united once its tipped over a critical mass. Every war in the name of religion has more earthly motivators as the bedrock. And being of the same religion has never stopped one man from waging war on another. No empire was ever built by a heterogeneous mono-religious entity. The most powerful unifier for mankind has always been language at the most primitive level. The need to communicate to another human. Of understanding and being understood.

**snapper** · 12 Oct 11,, 14:58

Originally Posted by Triple C

To be more specific, for much of Jewish history it was very hard for the Jews to expand their numbers because outsiders could not simply "convert" into Judaism. Christianity and Islam, however, would take all men and women who so desire to be a convert.

Not strictly true. There is a broad agreement amongst modern historian that Judaism at one point did seek 'converts'.

**nolanp01** · 14 Oct 11,, 17:09

Originally Posted by snapper

Not strictly true. There is a broad agreement amongst modern historian that Judaism at one point did seek 'converts'.

Judaism completely tried to seek converts, in fact before Islam, a great deal of Arab type groups converted and allowed Jewish settlement. One of the main issues has been a rather simple one, Christianity and Islam is easy to teach and convert to. Judaism is not. If we observe Christianity as a reformed Judaism, we can see how much more flexible it is at the key aspects.

One thing I've often looked at though, in matters of Rome and what was to become a Christian influenced empire is that it was much easier to spread than non-monotheist religions. There were no Gods, just one and one church to explain it such. Good and evil were not complicated, the Gods of old were usually impartial to morality, but this was a God that defined right and wrong. Judaism of course had this God for a great deal of years but they had it in such complicated terms that for the average person, was not really, and I hate to use this term, 'commercial'.

**~~vsdoc~~** · 15 Oct 11,, 08:13

Originally Posted by nolanp01

Judaism completely tried to seek converts, in fact before Islam, a great deal of Arab type groups converted and allowed Jewish settlement. One of the main issues has been a rather simple one, Christianity and Islam is easy to teach and convert to. Judaism is not. If we observe Christianity as a reformed Judaism, we can see how much more flexible it is at the key aspects.

I think this is more about the evolutionary cycle that every religion and faith goes through, from the oldest to the youngest. To be born, take root and grow, I guess every religion must have spread the word in some form or the other and accepted people into the flock. But after a phase of steep inorganic growth, there comes a tipping point where a religion either reaches critical mass for self perpetuation organically or it goes into decline. I also find it a fascinating coincidence that all the major world religions were born and grew out of Asia, yet the power struggle actually began after the focal point spread and shifted to become more Europe versus Asia. With Islam wedged in between.

Which kind of bolsters my previous theory. What we see is not a clash of religions, but a clash of socio-geographical cultures. The history of the two great wars is also a fascinating transition and evolution of on the one hand the internal power struggle for leadership of the Western (Christian) world in Europe and on the other the supremacy of the Western Christian world over Asia, with the next half century again moving from Christian on Christian clashes to Western on Asian (military and economic). I do not doubt that a war between America and Europe on the one hand and Asian powers on the other is going to come. Probably within my own lifetime.

**zraver** · 16 Oct 11,, 04:25

Originally Posted by Mihais

Gents,exceptions aren't the rule.There was a certain evangelical zeal in the 19th century,as the empire expanded and the state could not have escaped this influence.But that's beyond the scope of the argument.No native religion was destroyed in the British Empire,not it was persecuted per se,

Then someone needs to rewrite the Irish and American history books- catholics vs Anglicans, Anglicans vs Calvinist, Calvanist, Anglicans and Catholics vs anabaptist...