NationStates Jolt Archive

I wonder what the world would be like without him. If he died in a miscarriage or fell off a bridge at age 10.

Might the Roman Empire still exist?
Would they have taken over China? all of Africa?
Would they have discovered the Americas?
Would there be a computer that we now use?

We'd all be Jewish.

Let that sink it for a moment.

I wonder what the world would be like without him. If he died in a miscarriage or fell off a bridge at age 10.

Might the Roman Empire still exist?
Would they have taken over China? all of Africa?
Would they have discovered the Americas?
Would there be a computer that we now use?

There need be NO difference, at all....

There are many people who doubt that the man we KNOW as 'Jesus' ever even existed....

Regarding the points you made, though... the Roman Empire was already in a gradual state of dissolution. It had basically reached the limits of it's feasible expansion, and the society itself had become corrupt and introverted.

The Roman Empire was falling apart plenty before the 'Jesus' stories started.

I wonder what the world would be like without him. If he died in a miscarriage or fell off a bridge at age 10.

Might the Roman Empire still exist?
Would they have taken over China? all of Africa?
Would they have discovered the Americas?
Would there be a computer that we now use?

The Roman Empire would have fallen a lot sooner :) As it is, it lasted to 1453, and its adopted state religion was a vital part of the glue that held their society together. They wouldn't have continued conquering - certainly not China/Africa! - by the 1st - 2nd century AD they had pretty much reached the limits of what social glue, technology of the time, and military competence could offer their Empire in terms of size. They might have discovered America, though :D

Without Christianity, the 'Dark Ages' of Europe would have lasted a lot longer... the Christians were a repository of classical knowledge for a long time in both East and West - initial Islamic and Arabic thought and technology relied and built on this preserved knowledge, as did the kingdoms and fiefdoms in the West. Without having had that, you can put back the clock on our current levels of technology, culture etc. by a couple hundred years at _least_!

Interesting questions, hope for more responses!

The Romans nailed a dude to the cross for claiming to be the Messiah two years before Jesus, and again three years after him (or something like that).

There would've been another.

So we wouldn't all be Jewish, but I agree with the posts about the Roman Empire breaking apart anyways.

The Roman Empire did not last till 1453...you refer to the Byzantine Empire I suppose. Basically yes, it was one branch of what was left of the Roman Empire, yet it evolved to be an Empire within its own right, much like the Holy Roman Empire of Germany.

I think the most meaningful question is, what would the world be like without Hari Seldon.

The Roman nailed a dude to the cross for claiming to be the Messiah two years before Jesus, and again three years after him (or something like that).

There would've been another.

I think I have to disagree with you there - Jesus was the only one who 'broke through' (whether or not he was the son of god) as it were. The chances of there being another jewish pseudo-rabbi who ended up being worshiped as god by so much of the world... well, it's fantasically small, isn't it! There would be no christianity, or anything like it. It's unlikly Islam would have developed _exactly_ as it did (though there might have been something like it, deeloping as it did out of hybrid religions/social conditions that would have been similar in Arabia regardless of the existence of chrisianity) either. Might paganism have survived to today, though?

Elgesh']I think I have to disagree with you there - Jesus was the only one who 'broke through' (whether or not he was the son of god) as it were. The chances of there being another jewish pseudo-rabbi who ended up being worshiped as god by so much of the world... well, it's fantasically small, isn't it! There would be no christianity, or anything like it. It's unlikly Islam would have developed _exactly_ as it did (though there might have been something like it, deeloping as it did out of hybrid religions/social conditions that would have been similar in Arabia regardless of the existence of chrisianity) either. Might paganism have survived to today, though?
Paganism isn't really dead though, now is it? :p Imagine societies ruled by druids. Would be quite interesting.

Okay, I'm gonna address this from a completely historical outlook. So, if there are religious out there who are offended, I'm sorry...but just think about it. After all, what kind of faith do you have if it can't be tested?

So, the world as we know it would not be. The Dark Ages, after the Fall of the Roman Empire, probably would have been a hell of a lot different. During this time, the Christian Church was the source of knowledge. They didn't let anyone have the knowledge because that would have meant less power. So, the question falls...who would have come out of the power vaccuum that consumed the whole of Europe and the West of Asia after the Fall of the Roman Empire? Let's assume that the Jewish retained the knowledge, since they had been the source of knowledge in the past. The crusades would not have happened, so Europe would have been left screwing holes in people's heads when they got migranes. Let's say that the Dark Ages lasted five hundred years longer, because no one would have had a reason to go to Israel and obtain back that information. Europeans might not have really cared, and stayed in a dirty, dark environment until the Jews came sailing to Europe for some reason...let's say to convert a bunch of non-Jewish people because people were worshipping false idols.

Okay, so now we have the Jews who were never repulsed out of Spain because there was no Christian Queen Isabel to hate them. The discovery of the Americas was inevitable, given greed and power. That could have happened with or without Christianity. Needless to say, would mass extermination of Indians native to the Americas had happened? Maybe, during the five hundred year lag, they obtained medicines and such. So, Motezuma was never defeated, maybe the Aztecs are still around. America, would never had been founded for religious freedom from Protestants and the Dutch. They probably would have come over here to spread empire.

Does the Holocaust happen? Who knows with the whole continent being Jewish. Hitler would probably be Jewish.

It's interesting, though. Jesus' Sermon on the Mount is probably the most influential in history in the way that it changed history.

If you took it from a religious standpoint, Jesus had to be crucified, though. So, technically, none of the 'what-ifs' really matter because this is part of a a divine plan, pre-ordained.

Gosh. I'm such a dork about history.

The Roman Empire would definitely be gone, because its problems had nothing to do with Christianity. All that did was make the situation different; if anything, it may have prolonged it by providing a source of unity in the late 4th/5th centuries.

Roman ships have been found off the coast of Brazil, so they were able to reach it albeit accidentaly and without knowledge of their travels. The empire didn't last long enough to really explore the Americas.

The computer was invented well after the decline of instituationalized religion and post-enlightenment, so it wasn't totally dependent on religion to begin with.

Elgesh']I think I have to disagree with you there - Jesus was the only one who 'broke through' (whether or not he was the son of god) as it were.
That's because his followers had the better speakers (and the resurrection scam, but the others might've had that one as well).

Elgesh']The chances of there being another jewish pseudo-rabbi who ended up being worshiped as god by so much of the world... well, it's fantasically small, isn't it!
Not really. But then again, I'm an atheist, so you'll have to forgive me.

Elgesh']...though there might have been something like it, deeloping as it did out of hybrid religions/social conditions that would have been similar in Arabia regardless of the existence of chrisianity...
Exactly what I'm saying. Jesus or no Jesus...a religion based on the prophecy of the coming of the Messiah as enshrined in Jewish faith was inevitable.

Elgesh']Might paganism have survived to today, though?
It did, didn't it. And besides, Romans at the time were already experimenting with all sorts of faiths. Like Zoroastrianism and so on.

The Roman Empire did not last till 1453...you refer to the Byzantine Empire I suppose. Basically yes, it was one branch of what was left of the Roman Empire, yet it evolved to be an Empire within its own right, much like the Holy Roman Empire of Germany.

It developed from the Roman Empire in the East - exactly, evolved, if you will :) It wasn't a successor state.

The Holy Roman Empire was a successor state, though, that's right. But there's no break between Roman and Byzantine rule in the East as there was in the West.

The HRE was a partially successful resurection of the idea of a roman empire. The Byzantines _were_ the roman empire, no break between one and the other, just evolution, as you say.

Laitanie, that is assuming the Jews were not overrun by rival powers in the region, perhaps Arabs, Mongols, Indians...the list goes on. Perhaps the Aztecs would move forward and evolve into a global power. Perhaps they would implode. You are also assuming a new centre of knowledge would not form in Europe. Rome had filled this role until the advent of Christianity. Rome would collapse at some point, this is inevitable. The difference would be that the empires succeeding it would not be Christian. They would exist nonetheless.

Elgesh']I
The HRE was a partially successful resurection of the idea of a roman empire. The Byzantines _were_ the roman empire, no break between one and the other, just evolution, as you say.

The HRE wasn't really an empire; it was a coalition of hundreds of small states and kingdoms that often fought against each other in addition to other nations of Europe. Charlemagne's Frankish Empire was probably closer to Rome, but it was also swept away.

The HRE wasn't really an empire; it was a coalition of hundreds of small states and kingdoms that often fought against each other in addition to other nations of Europe. Charlemagne's Frankish Empire was probably closer to Rome, but it was also swept away.
What about Barbarossa's incarnation of the HRE? They often say the HRE was the 1st Reich.

What about Barbarossa's incarnation of the HRE? They often say the HRE was the 1st Reich.

True; him and Otto I (the Augustus of the HRE, you could say) were great leaders. It's probably more accurate to say the Late Dark Age/Early Middle Age HRE was a true empire, but it fragmented after the 12th century.

True; him and Otto I were great leaders. It's probably more accurate to say the Late Dark Age/Early Middle Age HRE was a true empire, but it fragmented after the 12th century.
Nothing good lasts forever :p If I remember well, Barbarossa was the one who crushed the Huns and saved the Catholic Church.

[QUOTE=Neu Leonstein]QUOTE]

Sorry I wasn't clear on the paganism thing. I know it exists, I meant survived as a widespread, state-religion type of thing, my bad :)

I can't believe you believe that the rise of Jesus (whoever he was) was likely! Historically, it's a minute probability that a leader of a breakaway secy of an insignificant religion (sorry, moden day Jews; I'm just saying your long-lasting religion was only one of many existing at the time we're talking about) of an unimportant province of an Empire that was in its hayday over 1800 years ago would have _any_ influence today, even as a historical footnote! I don't say that means he _was_ the son of god, or even that god exists, but you must concede that there's nothing 'likely' about the emergence of anything like christianity, or for it to have such an astounding impact.

religiously speaking: The people of Europe would have become a mixture of Neo-Platonists, Buddhists, Mithraites, and of course indigenous Pagan Polytheists. Not sure about history, but I'm willing to bet the indigenous peoples of the Americas would have fared better post-contact...

Without the Christian churches (both Catholic and Orthodox) witholding most knowledge, wouldn't Europe advance faster actually? :confused: Scientists like Da Vinci and Gallileo wouldn't be limited to hiding their ideas. If anything, intellectual thought might have flourished.

Elgesh']Historically, it's a minute probability that a leader of a breakaway secy of an insignificant religion (sorry, moden day Jews; I'm just saying your long-lasting religion was only one of many existing at the time we're talking about) of an unimportant province of an Empire that was in its hayday over 1800 years ago would have _any_ influence today, even as a historical footnote!
Judaism was not quite that insignificant. Roman citizens were quite aware of this religion, which had for a long time rejected all attempts to be romanised.

Secondly, Judaism had (and still has) in it all the elements of Christianity. As we know, before and after Jesus there were people claiming to be the Messiah. This one just happened to take off.

Paulus was probably a great influence, apparently he was a good speaker, and he did all the right things, and he talked to the right people. Among other places, he visited Athens, were he managed to bind his religion with Neo-Platonic ideas.

And Rome was in all sorts of troubles. People were actively looking for a religion to follow. As I said, they tried out many things, and Christianity was a cult alongside hundreds if not thousands of others. It was the beginning of the persecution of Christians that made it such a well-known and prominent group.
There was a large time gap between Jesus' death and the onset of Christianity as a mass religion - it is all explained by the historical parameters in which it happened.

If Jesus had never existed, this forum would be clogged with threads debating whether or not Thor could kick Mar's ass, who is hotter: Venus or Helen, and did humans evolve or spring whole from the head of Jupiter.

Without the Christian churches (both Catholic and Orthodox) witholding must knowledge, wouldn't Europe advance faster actually? :confused:

They didn't 'withhold' knowledge - how'd you come to that conclusion? Knowledge was a resource to them, so they _sold_ it (put very, _very_ crudely!)!

Remember, we're talking about the church between, oh, say 450 and 1000 in Europe, not the later, more centralised RC church.

Orthodox Church didn't have much influence in Europe, though, did it? Outside parts of the Balkans, by the time there was something substantially different from the church in Rome to _call_ Orthodox (c. 8th C.?), the Byzantines didn't control a lot of Europe outside the Balkans and a couple of bits and pieces of islands/rural S Italy, I don;t think...?

for that person that said Jesus never existed well thats just wrong Jesus did exist the Romans did keep records of this. Now the question of the son of god people did believe he was people believing now he was is a diffrent subject along for the miracles people claim. The only arguement is that why would people keep following him if he was a fraud but people still dont know about these mircales that some people said he created. But it is a fact he did exist. I do though think without him it would be very diffrent. Many missons in life art, and explorers did do it on account of Jesus and God.

And Rome was in all sorts of troubles. People were actively looking for a religion to follow. As I said, they tried out many things, and Christianity was a cult alongside hundreds if not thousands of others. It was the beginning of the persecution of Christians that made it such a well-known and prominent group.
There was a large time gap between Jesus' death and the onset of Christianity as a mass religion - it is all explained by the historical parameters in which it happened.

I think that, in looking _backwards_, this ascribes a level of inevitability to the rise of christianity that is pretty ropey historiography :) You're doing a wonderful job of _describing_ 'the historical parameters in which it happened', but that doesn't _explain_ it, or say 'something very similar was _bound_ to come along'.

Don't use this as an exemplar of the sensibleness of your aetheistic beliefs - that's too dogmatic! You can still hold perfectly rational aetheistic notions while believing that the rise of christianity was inherently _unlikely_.

To out in an analogy, 'your sister getting someyjomg nice doesn't hurt _you_ in any way' :p

Elgesh']They didn't 'withhold' knowledge - how'd you come to that conclusion? Knowledge was a resource to them, so they _sold_ it (put very, _very_ crudely!)!

Remember, we're talking about the church between, oh, say 450 and 1000 in Europe, not the later, more centralised RC church.

Orthodox Church didn't have much influence in Europe, though, did it? Outside parts of the Balkans, by the time there was something substantially different from the church in Rome to _call_ Orthodox (c. 8th C.?), the Byzantines didn't control a lot of Europe outside the Balkans and a couple of bits and pieces of islands/rural S Italy, I don;t think...?
Even so, if the Christian Church did not exist, another group would assume control of knowledge, or it would be disseminated amongst the populace. It would not simply vanish. Rome was a bastion of knowledge, what with its many libraries and so on.

Indeed, the Byzantine Empire and Orthodox Church's power were limited at this stage, and by 1453 the former's influence was over.

Even so, if the Christian Church did not exist, another group would assume control of knowledge, or it would be disseminated amongst the populace. It would not simply vanish. Rome was a bastion of knowledge, what with its many libraries and so on.



Yes, it would :)

The tribes and little kingdoms that succeeded the Western Romans were comprised of a folk who were largely illiterate. Even the elites, the aristocrats, didn't read or write - Charlemagne himself needed help to sign his own name, and that's as late as 750-800+!! Libraries need readers, and librarians to look after the books/scrolls. They would not have survived in the West - churchmen were among the only people who could read and had the academic training to make use of Rome's knowledge. Take them away, leave only a pagan religion... no books.

It was a much more turbulent time than you seem to think, and learning was a much more fragile, rare, precious thing.

Elgesh']I think that, in looking backwards, this ascribes a level of inevitability to the rise of christianity that is pretty ropey historiography :) You're doing a wonderful job of describing 'the historical parameters in which it happened', but that doesn't explain it.
But since I see nothing particularly special or different between Christianity and other religions of the time (again, I point to the Zoroastrians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism)), I can't point to anything that would have been a reason for why Christianity "made it" and others didn't, other than the persecution by the Roman Emperors.

And since I hold religions to be a historical phenomenon widely independent of various prophets, and since we know that there were Jesus-Alternatives out there to start Christianity, I see no reason to assume that there is something special enough about Jesus' existence to think that the world would have developed differently.

So it is true, there were many variables that could have been different and led to Christianity not taking the position it did.
But I contend that pretty much none of these had to do with Jesus, and that Jesus existence or non-existence would not have influenced it. Had there be another monotheistic offspring of Judaism at roughly the same time, we have to assume ceteris paribus.

Otherwise you'd have to call the thread "The world without Christianity?"

Elgesh']Yes, it would :)

The tribes and little kingdoms that succeeded the Western Romans were comprised of a folk who were largely illiterate. Even the elites, the aristocrats, didn't read or write - Charlemagne himself needed help to sign his own name, and that's as late as 750-800+!! Libraries need readers, and librarians to look after the books/scrolls. They would not have survived in the West - churchmen were among the only people who could read and had the academic training to make use of Rome's knowledge. Take them away, leave only a pagan religion... no books.

It was a much more turbulent time than you seem to think, and learning was a much more fragile, rare, precious thing.
Thus, the Church in many ways a guardian of knowledge. Fascinating. I never knew it had such a role in the Middle Ages. :confused:

But since I see nothing particularly special or different between Christianity and other religions of the time (again, I point to the Zoroastrians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism)), I can't point to anything that would have been a reason for why Christianity "made it" and others didn't, other than the persecution by the Roman Emperors.

And since I hold religions to be a historical phenomenon widely independent of various prophets, and since we know that there were Jesus-Alternatives out there to start Christianity, I see no reason to assume that there is something special enough about Jesus' existence to think that the world would have developed differently.

So it is true, there were many variables that could have been different and led to Christianity not taking the position it did.
But I contend that pretty much none of these had to do with Jesus, and that Jesus existence or non-existence would not have influenced it. Had there be another monotheistic offspring of Judaism at roughly the same time, we have to assume ceteris paribus.

Otherwise you'd have to call the thread "The world without Christianity?"

Imagine a million to one shot happens. It wasn't inevitable, and it doesn't disprove your belief that 'million to one chances crop up one time in a million'. That's Christianity, born of an amazing series of coincidences and fortituous events and the intervention of some weird and wonderful people. Divinely inspired or not, it was a tremendous fluke.

The 'pattern of history' from that time on as _we_ see it was in no way inevitable - that;s like saying we should be able to predict our future for the next 2000 years.

Sometimes flukes happen! It doesn't contradict aethism in any way :)

Thus, the Church in many ways a guardian of knowledge. Fascinating. I never knew it had such a role in the Middle Ages. :confused:
Yep - you should read more on it, it was a fascinating time, the Early Medieval World.

And yes, the church was very important for the _good_ of mankind (hard to believe given some of the carrying on since, but it's true!) :p

well, you guys are forgetting a few things. there was multiple barbarian hordes that were pushed into rome. now, if i recall properly, these hordes would have conquered rome much faster, if not for their christian faith.

in other words, the dark ages would have come much, much faster. i don't doubt the idea of a knowledge repository forming by SOMEONE, but it'd probably be formed in asia.

if you want to have an idea of what would happen to people that don't have a strong religious "power" with its hand in politics, look at china. it'd be several city states that war, until someone unites all the city states into an empire, it'd fracture, war amongst itself, until civilization ceases to exist.

another interesting note is that, combat would be very, very, very bloody. each time a city-state would fight, it'd be for survival, since the concept of parlay (yes, it is a christian ideology) would not exist. surrender would equal death. literal, children-swung-like-bats-to-beat-their-brains-out death. the roman ideal of merciless cruelty would be the prevailing attitude, since christianity would not have spread the idea of forgiveness and mercy to the hun and barbarian societies.

it would be nearly impossible to have a line of succession, as since you could not claim divine rule (a very important aspect in kingship, that they recieve their authority to rule from God himself). it'd be who is the strongest, with the biggest army wins. (ala civil war every time the ruling leader died.) it would be IMPOSSIBLE for europe to have formed any sort of coherent empire to affect the world they did.

in regards to the americas, it seemed that the rate that the aztecs, mayans, etc. were going, they would have slowly, but surely, stripped the land of resources and warred among each other until their empire, too, would have fractured.

we can see that, in regards to empire size, the critical mass is about the size of soviet russia. one day that invincible army WILL be defeated. once the army stops invading, they have to turn to governing... once you have governing, you need a line of succession, or a way to peacefully pass power from one ruler to another. the most effective way to do that is by having a religion say that the ruler recieves divine authority to rule over the masses (this is a christian concept) and killing the nobles, rulers, etc. is an act of defiance to God. (a reason why anyone who killed kings in plays, theatres, etc. of that time, even if they had a good reason to, in the end of the play, always suffered a horrible death)

the idea of democracy would NOT come to be. all the scholars of that time considered the "mob" to be a destabilizer in politics. the greeks never believed in the idea of a true democracy. they practiced oligarchy, rule by the few.

the idea of democracy is liked to the reformation, where by the latin vulgate was translated into german for the common people. this focus on the common people translated into the idea of religious freedom, that each individual person would worship god in the way he or she wanted. which in turn created states run by commoners, who advocated rule of the many (democracy). a concept that was, well, a by-product of christianity.

Elgesh']That's Christianity, born of an amazing series of coincidences and fortituous events and the intervention of some weird and wonderful people. Divinely inspired or not, it was a tremendous fluke.
As I said...that's not really the point. The point is whether Jesus made that much of a difference, not how Christianity became powerful.

I imagine that all those other little Messiahs had their own cults...it just so happened that Christianity had the million to one chance. But as you said yourself, in a million shots, chances are you'll score one.

And having looked at the situation in which all this happened, I'd still argue that the chances were a lot better than a million to one.

But no real point in arguing, essentially we agree.

Thus, the Church in many ways a guardian of knowledge. Fascinating. I never knew it had such a role in the Middle Ages. :confused:
Don't forget though that it started its time in power by cleaning out all sorts of Ancient writings.
There's a reason most writings (other than neo-platonic ones, surprise surprise) were only preserved in the Arab world and had to be reintroduced in the Renaissance.

Elgesh']And yes, the church was very important for the _good_ of mankind (hard to believe given some of the carrying on since, but it's true!) :p
It is an inherently autocratic structure, you can't deny that.

It required blind faith of its subjects. It's dogmas were law, and everything was explained with a simple "God made it happen".
I would call that a blanket over Europe, muflling the sound of anyone or anything that wanted something better or new.

There was a reason Aristotle didn't survive the Dark Ages in Europe.

There was a reason Aristotle didn't survive the Dark Ages in Europe.
Yeah, he would've been really old.

Yeah, he would've been really old.
Hmmm...I see your point. :p

Don't forget though that it started its time in power by cleaning out all sorts of Ancient writings.
There's a reason most writings (other than neo-platonic ones, surprise surprise) were only preserved in the Arab world and had to be reintroduced in the Renaissance.
Oh I am aware of this. Yet, I was not aware of the fact that the Church did indeed preserve knowledge as well.

Elgesh']Yep - you should read more on it, it was a fascinating time, the Early Medieval World.

And yes, the church was very important for the _good_ of mankind (hard to believe given some of the carrying on since, but it's true!) :p
I plan on doing so :)

i still think the important contribution to society that christianity brought into the world is the societal acceptance of divine authority, universal sufferage, forgiveness, and mercy.

passing of authority from one generation to another was generally less bloody under christendom compared with non-christendom.

Things would be the exact same as they are now.

i still think the important contribution to society that christianity brought into the world is the societal acceptance of divine authority, universal sufferage, forgiveness, and mercy.

passing of authority from one generation to another was generally less bloody under christendom compared with non-christendom.
?!?!?

How the hell did christianity bring about universal sufferage?!

Christianity helped oppress women for a nearly two thousand years after it began.

simply with the idea of "all created equal?" can you imagine the hindu, the muslim, or the buddhist exposing that idea?

?!?!?

How the hell did christianity bring about universal sufferage?!



Women demanded suffrage for a long time. Eventually men said "Fine! vote then and shut up about it for Christ's sake."

Oh I am aware of this. Yet, I was not aware of the fact that the Church did indeed preserve knowledge as well.

That's because the church, in reality, did not retain the knowledge from the philosophers of ancient Greece, etc. In fact, they did mostly the opposite. Anything which was viewed as "Heresy" or "Pagan" was destroyed. This included libraries, manuscripts, and beautiful art.

That's because the church, in reality, did not retain the knowledge from the philosophers of ancient Greece, etc. In fact, they did mostly the opposite. Anything which was viewed as "Heresy" or "Pagan" was destroyed. This included libraries, manuscripts, and beautiful art.
The predecessor to the Orthodox Church did indeed do much to damage the legacy of ancient Greece, such as philosophy and so on. It closed philosophical schools and condemned the ancient world. However, this was not the action of the Church as a whole, but rather of a particular fragment of it.

I'm sorry, somebody said that the concept of "parlay" was a "christian idealogy" and that without christianity, battles would be bloodier?

I'm going to check into this, it sounds a little sketchy...

simply with the idea of "all created equal?" can you imagine the hindu, the muslim, or the buddhist exposing that idea?
Christ did indeed preach equality and respect of one to another and so on. Too bad the Church as a whole did not adopt his teachings.

Without christianity Europe would be a mess and with the European empires the world would be under-developed.

As said the Roman Empire fall because the Christianity but due to corruption and the breaking down of organisation in the armies and that fact that the barbarians where making tactics againts the romans.

Christianity has also helped the foudning of humans rights (though it toke ages to get them).

Look at some of the Pagan Practises you think the world would be better if we left Babies that looked weak to die in the forest or maybe you would like human sacrifice this idea that the pagan religions are not as bad as we think they are is stupid the only reason witch's dont kill people is because they mind says it is wrounge why due to christian teachings againts murder.

Christ did indeed preach equality and respect of one to another and so on. Too bad the Church as a whole did not adopt his teachings.

Only because the Romans mixed there ideas with Christianity.

Without christianity Europe would be a mess and with the European empires the world would be under-developed.

As said the Roman Empire fall because the Christianity but due to corruption and the breaking down of organisation in the armies and that fact that the barbarians where making tactics againts the romans.

Christianity has also helped the foudning of humans rights (though it toke ages to get them).

Look at some of the Pagan Practises you think the world would be better if we left Babies that looked weak to die in the forest or maybe you would like human sacrifice this idea that the pagan religions are not as bad as we think they are is stupid the only reason witch's dont kill people is because they mind says it is wrounge why due to christian teachings againts murder.
Yet if witches don't believe in Christian teachings, why would they care? :rolleyes: Please don't tell me you're one of those people who thinks practitioners of magic should be burnt alive...

Only because the Romans mixed there ideas with Christianity.
The notions of equality? Or their suppression?

simply with the idea of "all created equal?" can you imagine the hindu, the muslim, or the buddhist exposing that idea?
Uh.... yes?

Look at some of the Pagan Practises you think the world would be better if we left Babies that looked weak to die in the forest or maybe you would like human sacrifice this idea that the pagan religions are not as bad as we think they are is stupid the only reason witch's dont kill people is because they mind says it is wrounge why due to christian teachings againts murder.
Actually, it's because it's part of their religion not to do harm. It's something that's generally pretty universal in religions.
Furthermore, rumours about baby-killing and human sacrifices among pagans are highly overrated. Very few pagan groups practised these things and many gave them up early in their history. However, rumours and lies are persistent. Too bad the one about christians eating babies all but disappeared, huh?

Look at some of the Pagan Practises you think the world would be better if we left Babies that looked weak to die in the forest or maybe you would like human sacrifice this idea that the pagan religions are not as bad as we think they are is stupid the only reason witch's dont kill people is because they mind says it is wrounge why due to christian teachings againts murder.
Actually, it's because it's part of their religion not to do harm. It's something that's generally pretty universal in religions.
Furthermore, rumours about baby-killing and human sacrifices among pagans are highly overrated. Very few pagan groups practised these things and many gave them up early in their history. However, rumours and lies are persistent. Too bad the one about christians eating babies all but disappeared, huh?

Also, it's funny how many roman pagans wanted to leave the christians alone to practice their religion, yet when the christians got in power, it was convert or die. Yet christians claim the pagans are the bad guys.

Actually, it's because it's part of their religion not to do harm. It's something that's generally pretty universal in religions.
Furthermore, rumours about baby-killing and human sacrifices among pagans are highly overrated. Very few pagan groups practised these things and many gave them up early in their history. However, rumours and lies are persistent. Too bad the one about christians eating babies all but disappeared, huh?

Also, it's funny how many roman pagans wanted to leave the christians alone to practice their religion, yet when the christians got in power, it was convert or die. Yet christians claim the pagans are the bad guys.
All very true.

I think the most meaningful question is, what would the world be like without Hari Seldon.
you're a genius

Uh.... yes?

Yes is right... One of the fundamental precepts that Buddhism is founded on is universal equality -- not just between man and woman and between races, but between humans and animals, between every sentient being.

Research some before you diss other religions to make a point. Just by saying that, Omglazergunpewpewpew, you showed that you don't believe everyone to be equal, and that you believed christianity to better than muslims, hindus, and buddhists.

In fact, the Buddhist 'religion' (its more of a philosophy than a religion, really) is much more tolerant than Christianity. You don't see the Dali Lama going around telling people that they're doomed to suffering for an eternity because of their sexual preference, or their promiscuisity, or anything for that matter. And you don't see him telling you that you need to pay him a tenth of everything you make, either. Or that you can or can't do something because of your sex, race, preference... you get my point.

simply with the idea of "all created equal?" can you imagine the hindu, the muslim, or the buddhist exposing that idea?
Well...it's a part in all of those. Hindus and Buddhists also have the idea of Karma, which may be a little suspect when you want total equality, but Islam has a policy of "different, but equal" (although you wouldn't think so if you'd look at the way it works today in some places).
And Christian Practice in the Middle Ages was certainly everything but "equal rights". It was more like "God put you on earth to be a servant. You must serve god (that's us) and your lord (that's him over there). If you don't do it, you go to hell. We are in such a great position of power over you by divine will."

The predecessor to the Orthodox Church did indeed do much to damage the legacy of ancient Greece, such as philosophy and so on. It closed philosophical schools and condemned the ancient world. However, this was not the action of the Church as a whole, but rather of a particular fragment of it.
The Bishop of Rome did no different in the West though. Pagan literature was either destroyed, or simply not added to the libraries and therefore not preserved.
Only things that somehow supported Church doctrine was kept intact, and that is where a few things survived.

Only because the Romans mixed there ideas with Christianity.
Romans (particularly in the Republican times) had a very advanced system of rights. You were a citizen, citizens could vote for consuls, senators and so on (depending on your wealth).
There was a basic law that guaranteed rights and proper legal procedures.

All of those things were lost because the church found them to be against its interest.

Romans (particularly in the Republican times) had a very advanced system of rights. You were a citizen, citizens could vote for consuls, senators and so on (depending on your wealth).
There was a basic law that guaranteed rights and proper legal procedures.

All of those things were lost because the church found them to be against its interest.
Weren't Romans also somewhat partial to the idea of genderial equality?

The real question is, what would the world be like without Chuck Norris?


Anyway, yes, stuff about human sacrifice that we commonly hear about pre-christian European pagan religions is mostly bullshit. The romans (who didn't like the Druids), and then the Christians, spread propaganda about other religions in those days, since pagan religions were very real competition. Most of it is untrue. The pagans also spread propaganda that was largely untrue. I'm sure someone probably tried to spread a rumor about Christians eating babies. People can say really nasty things about someone they're competing against.

Weren't Romans also somewhat partial to the idea of genderial equality?
I heard that women could actually own property... not something christians allowed women to do for quite some time.

Yes is right... One of the fundamental precepts that Buddhism is founded on is universal equality -- not just between man and woman and between races, but between humans and animals, between every sentient being.

Research some before you diss other religions to make a point. Just by saying that, Omglazergunpewpewpew, you showed that you don't believe everyone to be equal, and that you believed christianity to better than muslims, hindus, and buddhists.

In fact, the Buddhist 'religion' (its more of a philosophy than a religion, really) is much more tolerant than Christianity. You don't see the Dali Lama going around telling people that they're doomed to suffering for an eternity because of their sexual preference, or their promiscuisity, or anything for that matter. And you don't see him telling you that you need to pay him a tenth of everything you make, either. Or that you can or can't do something because of your sex, race, preference... you get my point.
All very true. Buddhism is perhaps one of the most tolerant religions out there, if not the most tolerant.

I heard that women could actually own property... not something christians allowed women to do for quite some time.

At least in marriage there was no Roman sexual equality. The husband (or the oldest surviving male descendant of the husband,i f the husband was deceased) was lord and ruler (called the "pater familias") of the household with the right to banish, kill or sell into slavery any family members who behaved in a way the pater familias deemed inappropriate. (Technically, theat included unmarried sons as well as wives, so it was not strictly a sex-based form of deiscrimination...but only men could be a pater familias.) The Roman courts legally recognized this power of the pater familias and did not interfere with one's decisions, no matter how unfair.

At least in marriage there was no Roman sexual equality. The husband (or the oldest surviving male descendant of the husband,i f the husband was deceased) was lord and ruler (called the "pater familias") of the household with the right to banish, kill or sell into slavery any family members who behaved in a way the pater familias deemed inappropriate. (Technically, theat included unmarried sons as well as wives, so it was not strictly a sex-based form of deiscrimination...but only men could be a pater familias.) The Roman courts legally recognized this power of the pater familias and did not interfere with one's decisions, no matter how unfair.

Just the way it should be...

*covers self with flame-proof suit*

At least in marriage there was no Roman sexual equality. The husband (or the oldest surviving male descendant of the husband,i f the husband was deceased) was lord and ruler (called the "pater familias") of the household with the right to banish, kill or sell into slavery any family members who behaved in a way the pater familias deemed inappropriate. (Technically, theat included unmarried sons as well as wives, so it was not strictly a sex-based form of deiscrimination...but only men could be a pater familias.) The Roman courts legally recognized this power of the pater familias and did not interfere with one's decisions, no matter how unfair.
So much for the so-called notion of Roman equity. At what stage of the Roman Empire was this though?

Just the way it should be...

*covers self with flame-proof suit*
Yeah, wouldn't you just love your dad to sell you off as a slave? :D :rolleyes:

If God did not create Jesus, there would be other ways that He would make Himself known. He would have probably still sent some form of His power and holiness down to Earth.

Yeah, wouldn't you just love your dad to sell you off as a slave? :D :rolleyes:

Luckily, I'm a man.

:D

Luckily, I'm a man.

:D
Read what he said. Carefully. You'll notice sons could be sold off too. :rolleyes:

Bah! I'd be nice!

Bah! I'd be nice!
As someone's slave? :p

As someone's slave? :p


Well, being a slave isn't all bad...;)

Well, being a slave isn't all bad...;)
Hah, maybe you can come and be my slave then...would be nice not to have to worry about cooking my own food and washing my own clothes :p

Hah, maybe you can come and be my slave then...would be nice not to have to worry about cooking my own food and washing my own clothes :p

Hmmm...There are other, more meaningful uses for a slave.

Hmmm...There are other, more meaningful uses for a slave.
Hey, just be aware I'm a guy :p (who likes other guys lol)

A World without Jesus would be terrible and everyone would be in Hell after the fact.:eek:

Hey, just be aware I'm a guy :p (who likes other guys lol)

And you think that matters to me?

(Check the Harem)

And you think that matters to me?

(Check the Harem)
Okie then, you're hired! :p ...or enslaved I guess :confused: :p

Okie then, you're hired! :p ...or enslaved I guess :confused: :p

Whatever you want, Maste...*this post has been editied by the FCC*

So much for the so-called notion of Roman equity. At what stage of the Roman Empire was this though?

It was formalized in the Law of Twelve Tables (so 400'ish B.C.E.) but existed until about the 5th century C.E. Later in that period, after about 100 C.E. the power of the pater familias weakend gradually, but that weakening was matter of social custom. It would have been unacceptable for latter day Roman to kill a son (unless he was born deformed, and then it was legally required) unless the son had done something heinous. That said, technically, Roman law on the pater familias remained in place (at least in the western Empire) until fell.

There were also other laws favoring sons over daughters, so more sexism. For example, during the Republic a father was required to care for allof his sons, but only legally obligated to care for his first-born daughter. Also, if you tried tosell your son into slavery, but could not find a buyer within three attempts, the some was a free man and no longer under the control of the pater familias, daughters had no such right to freedom.

-snip-
It was that kind of structure though that the Christian Church was happy to take over.
Pagan societies had pretty clear roles for women, and they were considered very important (as they obviously were) both in legend and in daily life.
But when the missionaries came, all that changed.

Also, Roman law had an odd concept of "rape." It was not a crime against the woman involved...it was a property crime against her guardian (either her pater familias or her husband, depending). The guardian was considered the "victim."

i don't think the roman empire discovered america.
or conquered asia or africa.

Also, Roman law had an odd concept of "rape." It was not a crime against the woman involved...it was a property crime against her guardian (either her pater familias or her husband, depending). The guardian was considered the "victim."
That's how it worked in the judeochristian system too.

What would the world be without Ghandi or MLKJr? What would the world be with all the people that ever walked who spoke of moralistic change and nonviolence?

A little behind... nothing more. Jesus never stopped the Roman Empire. He had very little to do with it. Judaism was not the main religion before Christianity, and it wasn't like the Jewish people to conquer (at least no with swords, through history the Jewish people have proved themselves apt at conquering economically). Only when the Roman Empire converted to Christianity did the Hebrew God become one of Conquering.

In my opinion, the world wouldn't be very different at all. Instead of Christians, the conquering race would follow some other dominion, whatever Constantine and his conspirators used at the time to push moralistic values on the Romans.

Okay, a few things here:

No. 1, in AD 1, the Romans were really beginning to be at the height of their power. It was Trajan (98-117) that pushed the Empire to its maximum extent, and the borders roughly stayed the same until the rule of the Emperor Valentinian III (425-55). Sure, the Roman system wasn't perfect (then again, what system is?), but there's no arguing that it was successful. To wit: Rome ruled the Mediterranean for 1,000 years, kept its borders roughly the same for 600 and the State itself (barring successor states) survived for over 2200 years. That's not something to sneeze at.

No. 2, technically speaking, the Roman Empire did not fall in 476. Only the Western half did- the East lived on as the Byzantine Empire (although I should point out there *was* a Western Emperor- Julius Nepos- recognized as such until Odoacer killed him in 480). I should also mention that there was still Byzantine territory in existence until 1461, when the Empire of Trebizond fell to Mehmed II and the Turks (although I could make the case that the Ottoman Empire was just the Byzantine Empire in Islamic garb, but that's not a debate I want to get into).

No. 3, Roman women *did* have quite a bit of power and influence, even if it wasn't up to par with the men (Link (http://dominae.fws1.com/Introduction/Index.html)). Plus, I'd argue that while the Romans did not necessarily *have* an equal society, given the opportunity they'd reach that stage today. The Romans valued things like honour and fairness, which today translated to equality.

As far as the question of whether or not the Roman Empire would have been able to survive: it's a complicated question, and one that involves more than the existence of Jesus Christ. The Romans showed themselves as actually very open to change- in fact, the State went through five major reforms itself: (1) Declaration of the Republic, (2) Julius Caesar's Dictatorship, (3) Augustus' Empire, (4) Diocletian's Empire, and (5) Constantine's Empire. The role of Christianity in this question is debatable: the attempts at assimilating the Empire were met with constant resistence (moreso than in the past when the Empire was more open), but removing Christianity from the equation wouldn't necessarily mean that the Empire would have been able to stay together. The Empire itself was undergoing a gradual process of fragmenting into seperate states (Britain-Gaul-Spain/Italy-Africa-Illyria/The Balkans/The East), and I believe if the Roman Empire were to in fact survive to this day it'd look more like a strong alliance of states than a single, solitary state. The Romans themselves never believed the Empire itself was a single state but rather a collection of countries, so even back then the Romans may have had a sense of this inevitable fragmentation (the Roman writers were also heavily cynical, which may also account for this pessimistic view).

simply with the idea of "all created equal?" can you imagine the hindu, the muslim, or the buddhist exposing that idea?

Hate to break it to ya, but it's the Declaration of Independance that says that all men are created equal (there may be a Bible verse that says the same, I'm no expert). Things like slavery were defended by supposedly Biblical 'proof'.

Also, Roman law had an odd concept of "rape." It was not a crime against the woman involved...it was a property crime against her guardian (either her pater familias or her husband, depending). The guardian was considered the "victim."

Whereas these days the woman is to blame, depending on her style of dress or drinking habits... :rolleyes:

I wonder what the world would be like without him. If he died in a miscarriage or fell off a bridge at age 10.

As pointed out, historians are not sure he fyisically existed in the first place; that he isn't a character made up to sell the religion. There definately are no contemporary documents speaking of him (people who now want to claim there are 1000s, that the Romans kept records and so on - reference them. Name, place where we can find them and date they were written. And then post it in the topic about historical Jesus).

Whether or not he truly existed as a man, this does imply his actual existence was not needed to bring forth todays society. Unless you include the spiritual aspect of him dying for our sins and saving humanity - but if you do that historical speculation is pointless.

The Romans nailed a dude to the cross for claiming to be the Messiah two years before Jesus, and again three years after him (or something like that).

There would've been another.

So we wouldn't all be Jewish, but I agree with the posts about the Roman Empire breaking apart anyways.
ya, except those other dudes didn't come back to life. ever.

As pointed out, historians are not sure he fyisically existed in the first place; that he isn't a character made up to sell the religion. There definately are no contemporary documents speaking of him (people who now want to claim there are 1000s, that the Romans kept records and so on - reference them. Name, place where we can find them and date they were written. And then post it in the topic about historical Jesus).

Whether or not he truly existed as a man, this does imply his actual existence was not needed to bring forth todays society. Unless you include the spiritual aspect of him dying for our sins and saving humanity - but if you do that historical speculation is pointless.
unfortunately, there are only a handful on secular roman documents surviving which make reference to jesus. one was a description of the eruption at pompeii, i can't remember who by, but apparently his account of the eruption is very famous. and he talks about jesus in it. i'll try to find it on the net if i can.

Paganism isn't really dead though, now is it? :p Imagine societies ruled by druids. Would be quite interesting. We'd burn people in wicker cages instead of at the stake.

ya, except those other dudes didn't come back to life. ever.

1) It has yet to be proved that ANY 'Messiah' claimiants EVER came back to life... even this 'Jesus' we speak of.

2) Also - unless you are a witness, or have some other form of incontravertible evidence... how do you KNOW that none of the other 'Messiah' claimants came 'back to life'?