Were other European religions better than Christianity?

[Rokcet Scientist]

a.Still does not explain how they were abolished after christianity became the dominant religion in the empire.

You're confusing correlation with causation.

[kılıç_mehmet]

To answer your first question, simply because "christian" emperors removed the gladiatorial combats due to their "pagan" nature is probably not the best leg to stand on-unless you want to say that Hitler was right when he declared Jews to be the enemy ...

As for your last contention, have you noticed how similar those themes are to modern day motion pictures? I don't watch Clash of the Titans because I am pagan-nor do all christians avoid them because they are such.

Well, I think that this was a major contribution, just like the Israelites, who had stopped showing their children down Moloch's burning belly, after being commanded not to(in unison with the commandment regarding idolarity) by their prophet Moses.
And I really fail to see how you godwin'ed this, even though it wasn't really necessary.

And yes, I did. However at those times, they were associated with the old Roman belief, and since christians were too, at one point, sent to their deaths at the arenas...It certainly must have influenced the emperor's descision to abolish them. And the empire wasn't exactly having it's golden age, and the games were expensive aswell, which was another reason to abolish them...

[Epimethean]

The games seem to have had mixed beginnings, both superstitious and martial, but what they became under the emperors was not an extension of their religious nature. The dominant reason for the decline of the games was economic. Suggesting it was christianity is a favorite pet of christians, but really, that is funny, because gladiatorial combat persisted longer in the eastern Roman empire than in the west. Set that aside and we know that christians were not peaceful people, as their campaigns against muslims, witches, and any other thing different from themselves proved. Any hand "Telemachus (even his name suggests a historical joke was being made)" had in stopping the combats was incidental to their cost and not due to the "benevolent" nature of christianity. The fact that the games were predominantly held during the Saturnalia, and that festival's ultimate displacement by an interloper called christ and his birth festival may be seen to be deliberately ironic.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Well, as I said, economics was also the reason for the empire's decline, not to mention the barbarian invasions....
Indeed, however the fall of the greco-roman faith contributed greatly to the abolishing to these practices, and well, the eastern Roman empire also persisted longer than the western empire.

And penis jokes aside, I can tell you that neither christians, nor pagans, nor muslims nor anyone else were a peaceful people, and that going to war has simply less to do with religion, but more to gain loot and land during those days, but yeah, his birth festival could also be celebrated with any kinds of gladiatorial games, but obviously, Jesus was not into that. Besides, a single God, meaning a monotheistic religion, was simply the next stage "of" religion, rather than a few gods that had numerous tasks, was simply seen as more convenient, although there were certainly a few more cults around that time that promoted similar views, christianity emerged as the superior one.
Not to say that it didn't benefit Europe, it certainly did.

[Epimethean]

No, you're missing the point, KM. Christmas as a celebration simply supplanted the Saturnalia in December. There is no evidence of a christ figure born at this time: It was merely politically convenient to slide the one in in place of the other.

Not to say that it didn't harm Europe; it certainly did. It is a plus and a minus. My main reasons for feeling any kindness toward the christians stems from their preservation of Classical literature, art and architecture. Do I think any other dominant religion would have done otherwise? Unlikely, but who knows.

BTW, the joke to which I referred had nothing to do with penises and everything to do with the "fighting from afar."

[The Magic Pudding]

The banquet was given in Cesare's apartments in the Palazzo Apostolico. Fifty prostitutes or courtesans were in attendance for the entertainment of the banquet guests. After the food was eaten, lamp stands holding lighted candles were placed on the floor and chestnuts strewn about. The clothes of the courtesans were auctioned; then the prostitutes and the guests crawled naked among the lamp stands to pick up the chestnuts. Immediately following the spectacle, members of the clergy and other party guests together engaged in sexual activity with the prostitutes.[1] According to Burchard, "prizes were offered--silken doublets, pairs of shoes, hats and other garments--for those men who were most successful with the prostitutes".

According to William Manchester, "Servants kept score of each man's orgasms, for the pope greatly admired virility and measured a man's machismo by his ejaculative capacity."[2] Manchester also refers to the use of sex toys; Burchard, however, makes no reference to this in his account of the banquet.

Ye when I was pope Christianity was as good as any of the old religions, it's not the same now. If the link between church and prostitute hadn't been sullied we wouldn't be having so many problems now.

Isn't it the duty of the church elite to provide a preview of heaven to inspire the hoi polloi? Wouldn't you have more respect for Palpatine if instead of wrinkly cardinals in attendance he had loosely robed beauties whose every movement gave a glimpse of paradise?

I've tried to tell him but the creature refuses to listen. We're finding it hard to recruit new priests, those we do attract are likely to cost us more in legal actions than they'll ever suck out of their parishioners.

I've had other things to do the last couple of centuries, they've been pleading with me to take on the top job, I'd hoped they'd work it out for themselves, hasn't worked out. Ah well it looks like it's going to be the pope hat for me once again.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think not. I think christianity did do good in putting an end to the violent gladiatorial fights, which were a means of sacrifice to roman gods.
The ancient greeks, gauls and germanic people often sacrificed humans, and suicide was seen by the germanic peoples as a shortcut to Valhalla.

Duels to the death persisted for a very long time after the spread of christianity. Gladiatorial fights were entertainment first, whatever else a distant second. Christianity burned people at the stake, or dumped them in rivers, or put them on the needle. Suicide was most definitely not seen as a "shortcut to valhalla", it was seen as a last ditch effort if one failed to die in battle. Specifically, they would jump off of a cliff, or fall on their own sword. No poisoning, no slitting of the wrists....only those who die violent deaths need apply. Christianity has similar provisions (though christians probably don't like the comparison) in martyrdom.

Paganism, is not even a religion. It's a collective name for other religions beside today's world religions.
Not that I do not respect the ancient faiths, and also praise the recon movements for their accuracy and devotion.
However, things like...Wicca and Ecclecticism ring all "fluff" and "teen angst" to me.

Many of the worlds current religions are pagan religions. It's only a blanket term for non-abrahamic religions. Essentially it's a derogatory "redneck" jab (pagan meaning: country dweller), which is ironic, given the backwater origins of abrahamic religions. As soon as abrahamic religions made it out of the woods, they looked down upon those in the woods with disdain...so apparently they've always been a bunch of hypocritical, sanctimonious assholes.

I can't say that I respect ancient faiths any more than current ones. It's all the same to me. Whether positive or negative benefits of any faith accrued has little do to with a faith, and everything to do with the people of that faith. I'd like to see you make the case that vicarious redemption is anything more than juvenile wishful thinking. There are angsty christian teens (and many many more of them). Wicca is just a modern alternative to abrahamic religions that found a convenient backdrop in paganism. An attempt was made to draw authority from age, and this same attempt is made in service of christianity. The urges, motivations, and claims are identical (gods, magic, morality, reward) the descriptions are different.

But I think that you're simply taking the part of history that you want to suit yourself, and leave the other parts out.
Don't worry. This is a common feature that you share with other anti-theists.
If we, for example, look at the christianisation of Lithuania, we see a crusade. But if we take a look at Ireland, we see a more peaceful conversion.

What exactly do you have to gain by spreading such misinformation?
What, really? Do you feel better about yourself? I think this is young people's stuff. I've known atheists with whom I can have a conversation on religion without that person bringing up the inquisition card, or "bloody history" card. Like, people know how to be bloody without showing any religious reasons.
But most people simply disregard the secular reasons behind the inquisition and cite "they did it fo' jewsus". No, I do not think that it is as simple as that.

I think you're trying to manufacture a point of contention where none exists. So? Religions do move into areas peacefully, but it is a rare thing for them to do so unless the area they move into is uninhabited, or very sparsely inhabited. Your mention of Ireland as an area of peaceful conversion is garbage. That's a story peddled by christian monks about their mythical demigod "Patrick". In any case, "peaceful christian conversion" and "ireland" do not belong together at all. Al Qaeda are amateur bomb-makers compared to the IRA. While the case could be made that these conflicts are political (or secular) in nature, one cannot ignore the element of religion...which is often found in service of these sorts of conflicts. That doesn't detract from the notion that religion is not a force for good, it re-enforces it.

Also, we actually criticize Spaniards who colonized the Americas as brutal, when they destroyed the Aztec empire.
Although it certainly is sad that colonisation has brought destruction upon the people, and later along with slave labor, allowed them to be constantly exploited, it certainly has brought an end to the constant warfare-sacrificial cycle, where the Aztecs went to war with other less powerful tribes or confederacies, brought in trophies in forms of slaves, and later on, sacrificed them on the altars of their pyramids.
This not to say about the general lifestyle of aztecs, as they were, in one form or the other, a near perfectly moral society. Thievery, murder(other than the sacrifices) and most petty crimes were not known to the aztec people. They were also blessed with plenty in terms of crops, and knew no hunger. They used the gold that is of immense worth to us, as nothing more than decorative ornaments, and did away with the materialistic lifestyles that we share.

Boy you sure do know a lot about Aztec civilization.........

We don't criticize them as brutal, it's a dry statement of fact. We criticize them because what they did was brutal, by any definition. I don't see any increase in peace in Central and South America as a result of colonization. I don't know why you seem to think there has been. Didn't you just make a remark about conflicts being secular in nature? So quick to defend religion against secularism, and then so quick to blame religion for something the aztecs did as being caused by religion. Thing is, it doesn't matter which angle you approach this from. Personally I approach it from both, because the aztec's rituals were very practical for them...as most religions have been for any given civilization. Colonization replaced one system of brutality with another. It didn't even bring the natives any of the benefits of the developed world, specifically health, as they just died off from disease. A near perfect moral society? Except all of those ritual sacrifices right...lol? Did you just make the claim that there were no Aztec criminals?



Okay, sorry, moving forward. The aztecs were not "blessed" with anything. They worked damn hard for the crops, and still they absolutely did know famine, not just hunger, generational famine. Their system of agriculture and irrigation was impressive...... for a stone age culture. It was still insufficient. A huge motivator for their expansionist drive was the acquisition of fertile land. They used the gold that they had for the same purpose that we did, they manufactured beautiful textiles, they altered their appearance with makeup, tattoos, and even by shaving down their teeth. Artwork was everywhere, and there was a wealthy ruling class and then there were human livestock. What about that seems to be a rejection of "materialistic lifestyles"? Perhaps you should stick to something you have actual knowledge of, like ethnocentrism and bigotry, and leave anthropology to those of us who are capable of discerning reality from fiction?

To recap, you've manufactured a litany of fantasies here so that you could take some jab at materialism. You could have saved yourself embarrassment and simply posted a one-liner against materialism and secular societies. How hard would that have been?

[Xavier]

I think not. I think christianity did do good in putting an end to the violent gladiatorial fights, which were a means of sacrifice to roman gods.
The ancient greeks, gauls and germanic people often sacrificed humans, and suicide was seen by the germanic peoples as a shortcut to Valhalla.

Paganism, is not even a religion. It's a collective name for other religions beside today's world religions.
Not that I do not respect the ancient faiths, and also praise the recon movements for their accuracy and devotion.
However, things like...Wicca and Ecclecticism ring all "fluff" and "teen angst" to me.


What exactly do you have to gain by spreading such misinformation?
What, really? Do you feel better about yourself? I think this is young people's stuff. I've known atheists with whom I can have a conversation on religion without that person bringing up the inquisition card, or "bloody history" card. Like, people know how to be bloody without showing any religious reasons.
But most people simply disregard the secular reasons behind the inquisition and cite "they did it fo' jewsus". No, I do not think that it is as simple as that.


How is it misinformation?
The crusades, the ethnic cleansing of the Indians and the Inquisition were a direct extension of Christian theology, and in no way a perversion of it as modern Christians would like to believe.

The Bible says that people who don't worship the Judeo Christian should be put to death. Theres nothing in the theology of Norse Paganism or Hellenism which encourages religious wars. The idea that everyone else should follow your religion and you need to convert everyone else to it came from Judaism and Christianity.

Classical Rome and Greece had a relatively high level of religious freedom and were not opposed to learning and science like Christianity was.

Christianity put Europe into the Dark Ages and fought to keep us there as long as possible.

---

Not to say that it didn't harm Europe; it certainly did. It is a plus and a minus. My main reasons for feeling any kindness toward the christians stems from their preservation of Classical literature, art and architecture. Do I think any other dominant religion would have done otherwise? Unlikely, but who knows.

Thats not true. They only preserved a very small number of pagan texts such as the Iliad, Odyssey, Aeneid, Platos writings etc
Any literature or science teaching which contradicted Christianity was banned and destroyed.

The Christians destroyed the majority of Classical literature and in the process destroyed masses of knowledge of chemistry, technology, philosophy, medicine, astronomy.

In the 4th and 5th centuries the Christian Roman Emperors destroyed Pagan temples throughout the Empire, and their statues and architecture.

[Epimethean]

"Thats not true. They only preserved a very small number of pagan texts such as the Iliad, Odyssey, Aeneid, Platos writings etc. Any literature or science teaching which contradicted Christianity was banned and destroyed."

Reread my post. EVERY dominant culture preserves what it wishes. I noted that I was thankful for what it did preserve and mentioned that most cultures would have preserved something. Far more than what you suggest was preserved. As for your contention that anything which contradicted christianity was banned, that is patently untrue as is demonstrable in Plautus, Terence, Petronius, Aristophanes, Aeschylus, and so forth.

[Minimalist]

The last gladiatorial fights mentioned in the Colosseum were in 435, well after the beginning of the xtian period and animal hunts continued until the 6th century when they were stopped after Theodoric the Goth complained about the cost.

Early xtian fuckheads were interested in power...they weren't going to piss off the mob by cancelling the games.