Ray

And I don't believe in organised religion or the organised concept of God.

Religion, to my mind, was more of a mind control exercise perpetuated by intelligent and rather clever men to rule supreme or to satisfy their emotional void that craved for recognition and power (no doubt couched in very appealing thoughts and words).

No offence intended towards anyone.

To qualify my comments in this post, is it not an interesting aspect that those religions that did not create the concept of religious wars have not flourished? Islam, Christianity have the concept of War and have physically translated it so.

Hinduism has mythological great wars in their religious literature.

Buddhism, Jainism have had no religious wars per se.

Therefore, wars and subjugation was essential to perpetuate religion.

And wars are but political instruments.

Motivation came out of religion!

Therefore, religion was a ploy to subjugate people and control the mind to achieve political and territorial gains.

My views and maybe flawed.

But then I digress from the main issue of the thread.

Just a clarification, if you please.

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

Ironduke

Religion aside (which is not the intended focus of the debate), I would like to see your comments on the geostrategic and geopolitical factors that played a role during the Reformation. Please, take your time though This was a quick write submitted as coursework, and I definitely want to expand it in the future for non-coursework related academic purposes.

__________________
The Buck Stops Here

zraver

Brigadier,

Not quite true while Islam has a great many adherants I would not say its flourishing. Quite the contrary islam has becomethe religion of the most of the worlds poorest denziens. Likewise Judaism is not really on the upswing despite a Torah full of commands to kill. Meanwhile the Worlds largest religion (all sects combined) is one that has no provision in its canonical text of beliefs for violence. While many rulers have corrupted Christianity and fought vicious wars. Such justification is not found in the text.

Ironduke

This is very off-topic , but,
Indeed. Christianity and Islam are universalist, monotheistic, missionary religions that command faith.

Hinduism is a very multifaceted faith. It is not a universalist or missionary faith, however.

Agreed. I cannot comment on Jainism, but Buddhism is a non-theistic, missionary, non-universalist religion that does not command faith in a deity.

Judaism is monotheistic and commands faith, but is neither a universalist or a missionary religion. Without trying to sound denigrating, it is more of a "tribal" faith.

Three factors:

• universalist,
• mono/polytheistic, and
• missionary

These are the primary factors, in my opinion, which will identify whether a religion is conflict-prone or not. The more that are present, the more conflict-prone that religion will be.

Secularization (again, imo) will lessen the possibility of religious conflict. Therein lie the differences.

And again, I'm not commenting on the merits of any of those religions.

GVChamp

You've got yourself a strong argument there. I think you're missing a couple broad strokes, though. For instance, I think it would be beneficial to consider the three big rulers of the late 1500s. I can't recall their names at the moment, but they played a huge role in the consolidation of the state and in making things like taxation and central authority important.
Also, England, IIRC, had a much stronger banking society, no? That, along with economic reforms and "Protestant work ethic," plays a big role when all of that gold from the Americas starts rolling in and countries get stupid with economic policy.
Also, there may be a confounding effect; Bobbitt explains in his book "Shield of Achilles" how societies tend to define themselves in major conflicts to make themselves distinct and opposed to others...so, England may have just said "we're protestant" and won through better policy and luck...while Protestant beliefs may have just been a slight help.
I can't offer much in the form of elaboration to your theory, though. It'd help if I knew more about the industrial revolution in the Low Countries or Swedish politics, but I'm more focused on modern economics, not economic history. Sorry I can't be more help.

__________________
"The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

Ironduke

I should note, that in post #19 (the factors), this is not my work, I am borrowing from Jose Casanova, IIRC.

rickusn

Zraver:

"Meanwhile the Worlds largest religion (all sects combined) is one that has no provision in its canonical text of beliefs for violence. While many rulers have corrupted Christianity and fought vicious wars. Such justification is not found in the text."

This point is always ignored. Even in this thread it has been ignored.

Why? I know and if everyone is truthful with themeselves they know why.

Excellent work Zraver.

Ironduke

Please don't mistake this as a thread about a particular religion or religion itself. There was a side discussion about Ray and myself briefly that was explicitly stated as such.

Tarek Morgen

The Geography of Europe did play a large roll in the division of the religion, but i would not call it the reason why Protestants were able to rise (in the north) but why they managed to keep their position and new won independence from the Vatican. When the Lutheran reforms first spread out it was far more successful than most people remember. Before the counterreformation about 90% of all Germans (in this context: German-speaking) joined the protestants, even in the now again catholic south like Bavaria.

Other reasons were the weak Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire of German Nations (stupidest name ever) Karl V (Charlemagne V in English I think…but I am not sure to be honest), Who was unable to keep the Church united in Germany (in this context: lands were German was spoken), the terrible effects of the thirty years war which destroyed any hope (and even will) to reunify Germany religious (and proved it was impossible anyway).

Further the now protestant Nation of the “north” had a huge economic advantage over their southern neighbours for one because of all the seized property of the church, on the other hand because of more skilled labours. It was part of the Lutheran belief that a good Christian must be able to read the bible therefore he has to go to school and learn it. This lead to a giant “Bildungsoffensive” (Offensive/campaign [to improve] Education) everywhere in the north, resulting in more trained labours, higher literacy rates, and much more which all contributed to a strong economical rise.

Summary:

In my eyes there a several reasons for the Rise of Protestants in northern Europe:

The geography
The economy
The weak power of the Empire
The wish to gain independence from the Vatican

rickusn

There was no need to chide me for acknowledging a point you thinly veiled was the opposite.

If you and Ray were to discuss something not for public consumption then IMHO this was not the appropriate place for such a discussion.

Sorry to have upset you.

Ironduke

Didn't mean to chide, my apologies . I just really dislike religious debate. I don't mind discussing the historical or other effects of religion, but to discuss religion itself is quite anathema to me.

In reply:
Probably not the most professional written sentence:

Ray

Rickusn,

If you see the title of the thread, which is a dissertation subject, do you find any other way one could discuss the subject?

If so, do advise.

Religion, Reformation and Secular history of Europe is intertwined unfortunately.

Geographical aspects to my mind was a fait accompli.

zraver

Iron Duke,

One problem many people have is they assume that prior to the reformation the Roman Catholic Chruch was Christendom. They then base thier historical views on Christianity on the actions of a Church that in fact is more Babaloynian Mystery religion than Christian. At NO time has the RCC ever controlled all Chrisitians. Egypt, Syria, Ethiopia, parts of Europe only nominally Catholic, Cathars, Eastern Orthodox, Russian Orthodox etc, Christians in Moslem lands etc.

When Christians went to war it unjustly it was becuase of systemic illeteracy and racism that allowed the masses of the Plebians to be misled by the Patricians and Rex leaders. It was not the tenets of the faith, when the Popes or Kings when looking for spiritual justification they retreated to the Old Testament despite very clear directiosn from Christ and Paul that the Law had been fullfilled.

These distinictions are one reason the RCC was never able to squash the Reformation in Europe once literacy took off. Once the lay people could read for themselves the very clear and simple message of the Gospels wich spoke for themsevles it was all over.

The single biggest commandment from Christ is the Gospel itself. Sharing the good news about personal faith and salvation through grace via the gift of the cross. There is no provision in the text for forced conversion in any circumstances. It is made very clear that God alone reserves the right to judge a mans faith, actions, and thoughts. This may or may not be a side of effect of the fact that Christianity is a hellenized Jewish sect that sprang forth in an age when indivual religious liberty was at an all time high inthe west. While Christianity is very missonary, it is not one for forced conversions

Ray

Further, I would like to add that I can't change the history of Europe or of Religion.

And since I did not live in those times, my knowledge is based on what I have read.

At best, maybe I could be wrong on my understanding of the issue. That is where the interaction comes into play and one can benefit.

Ray

Tarek,

The question is how?

It appears very plausible since distance make control difficult, but can you connect the historical events with geography for better understanding of the issue?