What if, Christanity never existed?

[Rottenfruit]

What would be different in history and the world if the abrahamic relegion´s (judaism,christanity and islam) had never existed?

[ComradeOm]

Plenty. World history as we know it would be entirely different. Its possible that the broad outline would have remained similar (with the feudal military caste appropriating another creed to legitimise their rule) but with so many details changed as to be unrecognisable. Its simply too large a what if

[Ocean Seal]

As I see it Europe would have been very poor because the Roman Empire would have stayed alive and very much slavocratic for a long period of time and the Arab peninsula would not have been united under one empire. China/India would have strongly led the era and they would have probably colonized the Americas or the Americas could have remained isolated and the Eastern world would have competed over control of the West and Africa. Civilizations in Latin and North America would have started to expand and perhaps a series of different modes of production could have been formed. There might have been some confrontation between the Eastern empires and the American empires. I would think that the Inca and other tribes living in the Western part of Southern America would have imperialized East and the Aztec South. Possibly some confrontation there along with the development of a strong imperial nation in the South West United States often engaging in War with the Aztecs.

[Queercommie Girl]

As I see it Europe would have been very poor because the Roman Empire would have stayed alive and very much slavocratic for a long period of time and the Arab peninsula would not have been united under one empire. China/India would have strongly led the era and they would have probably colonized the Americas or the Americas could have remained isolated and the Eastern world would have competed over control of the West and Africa. Civilizations in Latin and North America would have started to expand and perhaps a series of different modes of production could have been formed. There might have been some confrontation between the Eastern empires and the American empires. I would think that the Inca and other tribes living in the Western part of Southern America would have imperialized East and the Aztec South. Possibly some confrontation there along with the development of a strong imperial nation in the South West United States often engaging in War with the Aztecs.

Native American civilisations lack the objective material conditions to form advanced civilisations of the Eurasian mode. There is no way the Incas and Aztecs can ever match the Chinese and Muslims in Asia.

To think that Roman slavery would never have ended just because Abrahamic religions never existed is somewhat short-sighted and frankly Abrahamic-centric. If Christianity didn't exist, Eastern religions like Buddhism and Manichaeism would have played a similar role in Europe. Manichaeism was already spreading in the Roman Empire and Augustine was a Manichaeist before he converted to Christianity.

From a Marxist perspective, we reject cultural essentialism so there is nothing specially good or bad about Christianity. Peasant wars in China were usually motivated through Messianic Buddhism or Daoism or Manicheanism, just like peasant wars in Europe were driven by millenniarian Christian sects. Socio-economically there is no essential difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manicheanism

Manichaeism thrived between the third and seventh centuries, and at its height was one of the most widespread religions in the world. Manichaean churches and scriptures existed as far east as China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China) and as far west as the Roman Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manicheanism#cite_note-1) Manichaeism survived longer in the east, and appears to have finally faded away after the 14th century in southern China

Europeans would perhaps become more like the Tocharians who were an Indo-European group living on the Chinese border, who converted to Mahayana Buddhism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tocharians

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Central_Asian_Buddhist_Monks.jpeg

Blue-eyed Central Asian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Asia) (Tocharian) and East-Asian Buddhist monks, Bezeklik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bezeklik), Eastern Tarim Basin, 9th-10th century.

[Rafiq]

A different religion would take it's place..

[Black Sheep]

I wouldn't be able to mock and offend christians :crying:

[Dimentio]

Would be some different but similar religion which would take over.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I 've thought a lot about what the world would be like if there was no Christianity. There were similar, competing religions kicking around in the Roman Empire. Perhaps a form of neo-Platonism or Mithraism would have played the same legitimizing role for feudalism that Christianity played.

I don't know enough about the dynamics of religion and the landowning class in the Ummayad and Abbassid caliphates or in Brahmanical India. Did religion play a similar legitimizing role in these civilizations?

Despite the annoying Christian hymn, "They Will Know We Are Christians By Our Love" Christianity has been one of the most bloodthirsty and intolerant belief systems in history, perhaps second only to Nazism in its intolerance. We have to take a materialist view of this though. Would a Mithraic or whatever counterfactual Europe would have emerged have been just as intolerant? Perhaps Christianity moderated processes that could have been even worse

Slavoj Zizek and others actually seem to favor Christianity as introducing an individualistic concept of humanity.

Engels and Kautsky thought of early Christianity as a sort of proto-socialism. It was a socialism based on socialization of consumption rather than production though.

The fundamentalist preacher in Florida who wanted to burn Quorans or Fred "God hates fags, he told me so himself" Phelps are not exactly performing miracles for the salvation and redemption of Christianity though.

[Geiseric]

Would be some different but similar religion which would take over.

Hopefully paganism, it's so much cooler than christianity. :p

on a serious note, christianity played a central role in uniting divided tribes and kingdoms in
gaul, germany, and britain so we would have seen slower development into nation states in europe probably.

[Agent Ducky]

that's so big of a what-if it's really hard to answer. Although I think that another similar religion would've developed and proliferated in its place.. So maybe not quite as different as others have speculated.

[Agent Ducky]

[QUOTE=Lenina Rosenweg;2049416]I
I don't know enough about the dynamics of religion and the landowning class in the Ummayad and Abbassid caliphates or in Brahmanical India. Did religion play a similar legitimizing role in these civilizations?

I know that in India that the ruling/highest class were the Brahmans. A lot of the landowners were peasants of lower classes (they didn't really develop the feudal system) If religion isn't playing a legitimizing role with the Brahmans, perhaps I've misunderstood the definition of the term?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Religious fundies would be *****ing about the NEA funding a piece of art called "PissMithra"

:D

Hard to say, maybe Buddhism or Zoroastrianism would have spread West too, or Polytheism would have continued its philosophical development. But Judaism and Christianity have encouraged unique cultural and philosophical ideas. Certainly, concepts like the Trinity, a universal absolute, and so on, have had a huge impact on western culture. Similar ideas were in other religions, of course, but in a different shape.

Ducky-the warrior caste, and often the merchant caste, held a lot of power too. The Maharajas were often of the Warrior caste. The brahmins had a monopoly on spiritual and intellectual activities, but they didn't have a monopoly on power.

Lenina-all religions to a certain point are used to justify the existing class relations. But there were also critical movements within the same religions using the faith to subvert the class relations. Same goes for Hinduism, and Islam and Buddhism are probably the same. Property is a metaphysical relationship with the world, and people use the metaphysics of a religion to justify their idea of property ownership on a moral and philosophical level. But religions also tend to argue on some level that property is transient, and that attachment to property hinders real moral or spiritual virtue. So on one hand, some Brahmins would use their faith to justify their rights, while Hindu critics of the Caste system would accuse Brahmins of misusing the faith to mislead people.

[Amphictyonis]

What would be different in history and the world if the abrahamic relegion´s (judaism,christanity and islam) had never existed?

Whether it's monotheism or not probably wouldn't matter. I think what humans do when in hierarchical imaginary clubs is what effects society. Just as teh Egyptians set up religious hierarchies, some Pharaohs even claimed to be gods. The Abrihamic religions do seem to be more violent than the others and world history defiantly would have panned out differently but I think the key problem with whatever religion is the hierarchical structure of it and the way in which the beliefs of the followers effect non followers.

It's one of the most complex questions facing mankind's future. What to do about the various conflicts which are based in religious belief. I think peopel should have the right to belive in whatever they want but when their belifs start effecting other people in a negative way is where problems arise. "Tolerance" is a sort of shifty word but I think it's key if religion has a future. They need to "tolerate" people who don't buy into it rather than judge and try to make society reflect their beliefs. I say tolerance is somewhat shifty because it implies people tolerate "bad" behavior when in reality there's nothing wrong, for example, with being gay.

Christians have been known for their self righteous indignation thrown at everything under the sun for thousands of years.One reason they were persecuted so much in the early days of their religion. Nero probably fed thousands of them to the lions.

[jake williams]

Could the original question be clarified?

What is it that doesn't exist? A religion called "Christianity"? Or any aspect of the whole ideology of feudal Europe, the ideology that was, in broad strokes, the necessary product of that social system - and therefore, feudal Europe itself? Or something in between?

[The Man]

What would be different in history and the world if the abrahamic relegion´s (judaism,christanity and islam) had never existed?

If Christianity never existed, a lot less people would have died on this earth.

[Rusty Shackleford]

the real question is, what if the roman empire never endorsed Christianity?

[Rooster]

Maybe we'd all be Hungarian.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

If Christianity never existed, a lot less people would have died on this earth.

Kind of a silly argument. Christianity, textually speaking, is no more violent of an ideology than any other. It was merely one of a number of competing cults, and the Roman Empire synthesized itself with Christianity (hence the Roman Catholic Church) to escape political destruction.

MAYBE less people would have died, but there is no distinct causality.

[Sir Comradical]

If the Abrahamic faiths never existed, the entire planet would be socialist by now and looking like this.

http://www.oneness4all.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/future_city_downtown.jpg

[bcbm]

If the Abrahamic faiths never existed, the entire planet would be socialist by now and looking like this.

http://www.oneness4all.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/future_city_downtown.jpg

gross

[Dragovich]

Ah, an interesting question, if Christianity did not exist, then we can presume that one of the similar mystery cults would had eventually become popular in the Roman Empire and become a sort of official religion but that's not too likely. The Romans themselves were pretty tolerant of foreign religions as long as the populations revered the Emperor. There are accounts of Romans absorbing aspects of foreign deities into their own pantheon.

Maybe something like Hinduism would arise but that was only if the Romans conquered the Germanic tribes beyond the Rhine and assimilated them.

[☭The Revolution☭]

We would be colonizing space right now. For 400 years, the Church ridiculed and killed people for heresy, advocating Modern Science, etc. Even today, Christianity preaches against world unity as a the great evil of "New World Order". Christianity really is a very primitive religion, and the only reason why they've made it this far is by brainwashing their offspring.

[chimx]

the real question is, what if the roman empire never endorsed Christianity?

The Roman Empire was already in decline when it officially endorsed Christianity. The absence of Christianity would not have stopped the economic progression of history, as ideology doesn't shape our history's economic paradigms. Christianity as part of the political super structure certainly exists to perpetuate the hegemony of the current production relationships and as such "short term" history would no doubt be effected, but in no way would fedualism, or later, capitalism not have developed because of the historical absence of Christ.

[Dr Mindbender]

Europe would still be practicisng polytheism (no Christian Roman empire to export Christianity). Judaism and islam would be the 2 most prominent religions in the southern hemisphere. I'm guessing there would probably be a significant power shift towards the islamic world. Saudi would be the worlds top dog with theological and oil reserve dominance.

[Queercommie Girl]

Europe would still be practicisng polytheism (no Christian Roman empire to export Christianity). Judaism and islam would be the 2 most prominent religions in the southern hemisphere. I'm guessing there would probably be a significant power shift towards the islamic world. Saudi would be the worlds top dog with theological and oil reserve dominance.

You sound as if monotheism is somehow intrinsically more advanced than polytheism, and that if Europe were not monotheistic, then it would never have become as powerful. I think that's BS.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Native American civilisations lack the objective material conditions to form advanced civilisations of the Eurasian mode. There is no way the Incas and Aztecs can ever match the Chinese and Muslims in Asia.



I think that this is a huge oversimplification. While the Aztecs, Maya and Inca lacked certain things which modern society deems as essential for modern civilization, ie iron (they did use less hard kinds of metal), they did develop unique technological and cultural conditions for their surroundings. For instance, the Aztecs had a system of agriculture which was more efficient than most of that in Europe, and the Conquistadors noted that the Aztec capital city (which was as big as any contemporary city and was surrounded by many other large cities) was cleaner and more organized than any back in Europe.

Of course, they did have shortcomings, like the aforementioned lack of metal, and with the exception of the Incan llamas, the lack of pack animals (not something they could be blamed for, there were no cows or horses). But we shouldn't discount the achievements of the Mesoamerican and Peruvian civilizations simply because they lacked certain aspects of material culture which we today take for granted. And if they hadn't been conquered, it's hard to tell how they would have developed.

Also note that when they were conquered, both civilizations had already begun to feel the effects of European diseases, and both fell due to kingdoms which had been marginalized by the Inca and Aztecs.



Anyways, small quibble, I agreed with the rest of your post.

[chimx]

Judaism and islam would be the 2 most prominent religions in the southern hemisphere.

Without christianity, i doubt if islam would exist.

Also, judaism does not generally try to convert non-Jews and tries to be fairly exclussive. I imagine a polytheistic pagan religion would more likely be popular, but again, it's ultimately irrelevant.

[Permanent Revolutionary]

Nothing, I reckon. Another monotheistic religion, with the same basic ideas would have sprung up in Judea, seeing as there were so many messianic preachers there, and history would have taken the same course as it has.

[Geiseric]

wasnt the question what if none of them existed?

[Queercommie Girl]

wasnt the question what if none of them existed?

Then a polytheistic religion would have essentially played the same role in Europe.

Do you seriously think there is something "inherently special" about monotheism?

[Queercommie Girl]

Nothing, I reckon. Another monotheistic religion, with the same basic ideas would have sprung up in Judea, seeing as there were so many messianic preachers there, and history would have taken the same course as it has.

It might not be monotheistic.

[StoneFrog]

Well if there wasn't any Christianity, i guess you could debate that the other religions/philosophy would of become more wide spread. From what i know, during early Christianity there were, Hermeticism and Neoplatonism; these which were becoming wide spread and influenced early Christianity. So maybe we'd have more mystic religions.

I think the question which is more relevant is if the Roman Empire didn't adopt a religion as a state religion, like they did with Christianity. For the perils of religion lay not in the philosophy but in the use as a tool for power. The time when Roman Empire had no official religion IMO was very interesting, since it was the first time in history that we had different religions occupying the same space in cities like Rome and other hubs of the Empire. This was due to the Romans not having a strong religious tendency, and were more interested in profit and riches.

[Queercommie Girl]

For the perils of religion lay not in the philosophy but in the use as a tool for power.


Yes, I agree. This is why I reject the notion there is any essential difference between monotheism and polytheism.

"Mystical" polytheistic religions can be hyper-oppressive as well. E.g. Lamaist Buddhism in Old Tibet. Also, most of the Mongol Khans were actually Buddhists, yet they ruled over one of the most militaristic and imperialist states in world history - so much for the ridiculous notion that Buddhism is somehow "intrinsically more peaceful" than Christianity and Islam. The feudal shoguns of Japan were also Buddhists, and they were brutal warlords. Buddhism was still an official religion in Japan in WWII, and many of the soldiers and officers who massacred millions of people in China were actually Buddhists.

[StoneFrog]

Well i think that no matter, if Christianity never happened, i doubt a polytheistic religion would of succeeded in Europe. Since the trends of the time were to monotheistic in different forms; the Egyptian i think were one of the first to first give notion of there being one god that is worshiped in many ways(note: i thin kthere were simular ideas in the east, don't know the time period of it), and then extended into Greek philosophy. Hermeticism is monotheistic and pantheistic, so too was neoplatonism but slight difference in being panentheistic not pantheistic. As i said before, with there being many religions living along side each other now, the notion of one god many forms of worship was becoming more accepted, and i think would of become more dominant if it not for the Holy Roman Empire.

[Queercommie Girl]

Well i think that no matter, if Christianity never happened, i doubt a polytheistic religion would of succeeded in Europe. Since the trends of the time were to monotheistic in different forms; the Egyptian i think were one of the first to first give notion of there being one god that is worshiped in many ways(note: i thin kthere were simular ideas in the east, don't know the time period of it), and then extended into Greek philosophy. Hermeticism is monotheistic and pantheistic, so too was neoplatonism but slight difference in being panentheistic not pantheistic. As i said before, with there being many religions living along side each other now, the notion of one god many forms of worship was becoming more accepted, and i think would of become more dominant if it not for the Holy Roman Empire.

I do not think monotheism represents an intrinsically more "advanced form" of religion, however.

But by your definition of "monotheism", both Confucianism and Buddhism are also "monotheistic", since in Confucianism there is the idea of the Supreme God of Heaven, and in Buddhism there is the idea of the "panentheistic" Buddha-nature that dwells within all things. This concept is especially evident in Mahayana Buddhism.

When the concept of "monotheism" becomes this wide, it essentially loses any pragmatic utility. I was talking about the strict monotheism of the Abrahamic religions.

[El Chuncho]

Christianity didn't end geocentricism in Europe, as slavery is justified in the Bible and the major slave trade came about in part due to Christians. The philosophy was greater in pagan Rome than Christianity, therefore it is conceivable that the pagans would have abolished slavery in the end without any supposed aid from Christianity. The older religions of Europe were also related to Buddhism, so it is conceivable that many would have evolved into something even more like Buddhism, which rejects slavery. In fact Greco-Buddhist interaction was already happening before, and during, the era in which Yeshua, or Jesus, was said to have lived.

The view that Christianity brought morality and kindness of people who followed faiths with some more progressive features (such as tolerance to other religions; the Roman religion allowed for all gods to exist, whereas Abrahamic faiths denied all gods but their own...and forced heathens to abandon their faith with death and violence) is the most absurd myth of Abrahamic-centrism. I am not denying that Christianity has no goodness or progression in it, but to think that all the more progressive elements of European society are inspired by that faith is fallacious. I do not mean to offend Christians, but Christianity didn't necessarily make Europe more progressive than the great scientific and philosophical culture of Greece, Rome after it became more scientific than martial, or even the less technological advanced cultures such as the Celtic, Germanic, Illyrian or Dacian cultures; the ones that survived all lost certain progressive features after the people were converted from heathenism to Christianity.

[El Chuncho]

Buddhism was still an official religion in Japan in WWII, and many of the soldiers and officers who massacred millions of people in China were actually Buddhists.

True but Buddhism was oppressed in the Meiji restoration and the Showa era (though less than in the Meiji era) in favour of State Shintoism, which was a highly debased version of Shinto, which influenced Japanese imperialism more than Buddhism (Buddhism was seen as a foreign religion of the Shogun, who had turned their backs from imperialism and the Shogunate was actually more progressive in some regards to more technologically advanced Japanese Empire; the Shogunate team had the first election in Japan, in the Republic of Ezo).

[El Chuncho]

Well i think that no matter, if Christianity never happened, i doubt a polytheistic religion would of succeeded in Europe. Since the trends of the time were to monotheistic in different forms.

I am sorry, but that is not quite correct. Most European faiths were polytheistic, and even the main religion of Rome was, as were many mystery cults despite many having a central figure (actually most of the ''monotheistic'' ones were truly henotheistic).


As i said before, with there being many religions living along side each other now, the notion of one god many forms of worship was becoming more accepted.

There are many gods in a great number of religions. Buddhism doesn't need gods, but many Buddhists worship a large pantheon of gods in their respective countries, and many there are many Bodhisattvas, in most forms of Hinduism all gods are aspects of ''Brahman'', but they are still polytheistic, most Native American beliefs revolve around pantheons, even if they have a central god, most African faiths do and most heathens do too.

There is nothing more civilized about monotheism either.

[Dragovich]

Europe would still be practicisng polytheism (no Christian Roman empire to export Christianity). Judaism and islam would be the 2 most prominent religions in the southern hemisphere. I'm guessing there would probably be a significant power shift towards the islamic world. Saudi would be the worlds top dog with theological and oil reserve dominance.

I'm not understanding how Islam can still exist if there's no Christianity forming. It formed in an area where Arian Christianity was dominant.

The Romans might eventually head to a henotheistic direction.

[El Chuncho]

Yeah, Islam cannot exist without the existence of Christianity. If Christianity never existed, the Arabs would have their older polytheistic religion - but there would still be Allah (an Arabic word that simply means ''The God'', a cognate of the Hebrew Ha'El, and a contraction of Alilah), Djinn and many other unique features of today's Islam.

Actually Rome was almost henotheistic itself, having a trio of gods that protects the city of Rome (which changed based on the period) but accepted other gods. One of the most progressive traits of the Roman Empire was its tolerance, they even allowed Hebrews to stick to their more intolerant monotheistic religion (which was originally henotheistic, Ha'El/YHWH/Adonai being but one of the Semitic gods, the sky-father, and the patron of the Canaanite group that became Hebrews).

[Queercommie Girl]

True but Buddhism was oppressed in the Meiji restoration and the Showa era (though less than in the Meiji era) in favour of State Shintoism, which was a highly debased version of Shinto, which influenced Japanese imperialism more than Buddhism (Buddhism was seen as a foreign religion of the Shogun, who had turned their backs from imperialism and the Shogunate was actually more progressive in some regards to more technologically advanced Japanese Empire; the Shogunate team had the first election in Japan, in the Republic of Ezo).

I wouldn't say the feudal shogun warlords were more "progressive" than capitalist Japan.

The Meiji Restoration was actually a partly progressive event, replacing feudalism in Japan with capitalism. Japanese imperialism only arose later as the country turned more right-wing.

[Kowalsky]

As I see it Europe would have been very poor because the Roman Empire would have stayed alive and very much slavocratic for a long period of time and the Arab peninsula would not have been united under one empire. China/India would have strongly led the era and they would have probably colonized the Americas or the Americas could have remained isolated and the Eastern world would have competed over control of the West and Africa. Civilizations in Latin and North America would have started to expand and perhaps a series of different modes of production could have been formed. There might have been some confrontation between the Eastern empires and the American empires. I would think that the Inca and other tribes living in the Western part of Southern America would have imperialized East and the Aztec South. Possibly some confrontation there along with the development of a strong imperial nation in the South West United States often engaging in War with the Aztecs.

well, we can guess that the role of christianity could be took over by the cult of mythra