Why did natives all around the world (Africa, Americas, Oceania, Europe) convert so readily to Christianity...

cringe

:^)
>your gay ass post
:^(

Upvoted! XD

>in addition to what has been said above, the europeans had a real knack for tailoring christianity to the native's tastes without bastardizing it completely.

That was "been there, done that" for the Middle Easterners in China centuries before the New World was explored.

>you're not going to give that up because some dude in a robe tells you about some guy in a place you've never heard of hundreds of years ago
You will if belonging to that new religion will let you function in the new socioeconomic order your colonizer just imposed on you. Or if you're dirt poor and converting will provide you access to food and other resources you wouldn't have otherwise.

>The negro, having no past, welcomes novelty and tacitly admits that others are his masters. Both brown and white men have been so accepted in Africa. The relatively faint resistance offered by the naturally brave blacks to
white and brown conquest, the ready reception of
Christianity and Islam, and the extraordinary personal
ascendancy acquired by individual Arabs and Europeans, all indicate a willingness to accept foreign tute-
lage which in the Asiatic is wholly absent.

>All in all a proper moral codex is what all those societies didn't have.

They did have that shit. That's one technique Christians use to discredit others. That they have no moral system.

Not "europeans". There were specific orders that proselytized with that sort of thing in mind (the jesuits come to mind) and they weren't too popular with the men of rome.

Don't listen to the horse shit socio-economic arguments being pushed on you by materialists ITT. The truth is that Christianity is fundamentally a more well intelligent and highly developed worldview than simple paganism. That's why tribesmen all over the world converted easily.

It was only in places like Asia that already had highly developed religions that Christianity had a harder time taking root.

>sacrificing people to their gods
>infanticide
>sex slaves and sexual rituals
>etc.
>morality
lol user, if you're gonna comment on the history board at least do your research first.
>b-but muh relativistinc morality
in that case jihad is moral. Either there are superior systems of morality or all morality is equal. That is all i have to say, good day!

This. Pagans just accepted shit, Christians spent something like 300 years developing their faith and ex-communicating heretics in order to figure out what Christianity is exactly. In fact, the first Christians to reach the goths were Aryans (what is now a heretical sect of Christianity) and even today christians are still figuring out what is and what is not christian through hard and long debates and rhetoric. If you are interesting in the specifics i would suggest reading the literature of the church fathers. Furthermore, Christians in their perspective saw the pagan gods as imperfect understandings of the christian God. Kind of like how a christian has looked at at least 3 sides on a cube and assumes its a cube, while pagans have only looked at a corner and assume its a triangle. In the pauline epistles paul points this out with his statement about how "... since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." (Romans 1:20, NIV). The Chinese were more materialistic then most (like modern atheists) so it was hard to reach them because to them, there was no god, just rocks. Sure they believed in deities, but those deities were bound by the self-creating nature of the universe that humans were bound to as well. Recently, under communism, Christianity has been succeeding in the church of China, as the people need hope and Christ is exactly that.

>also if you don't convert we'll get our friends the Franks to genocide your entire tribe so no one will ever know your name or deeds

>so no one will ever know your name or deeds
>everything we know about them is from christian scholasts
also
>Goths, Visigoths, galls, and other Gaelic tribes were not unified, franks were already fighting with them as well as every tribe fighting with every other tribe, and none of them were allied with the Christians so forcing conversion was not feasible.
>these tribes were sacking Rome, which at the time was practically the only christian part of the world with a few exceptions.
Christianity only really had some influence in the upper region when Charlemagne succeeded his father and began his expansion (unsolicited by the christians), he was a christian though and did like the church of st peter so he came to help the church in Rome when there were some sacking problems. He expanded his empire into what is today germany and france, and he did have prisoners get baptized, but he certainly was not solicited by the church to do such things, as he did so by his own volition. So your over-simplification is ,frankly, untrue. Priests did not convert by the sword, they converted by the word, st. Boniface is an example, he preached with fire and conviction, and the most violence he committed was cutting down the odin tree, but never an muzzie tier "convert or die" shit.

t. butthurt pagan larper

don't be stupid plenty pagans in the ancient world ran seeking shelter in temples at least 1 spartan king that i remember

>this post
how does that follow from what i just said?

what the post above me said

The irony is that Christianity was forcibly spread throughout Europe as well.

Convert, or die.

Catholicism, not Christianity.

As has already been referred to in the thread, Christianity was present in China before much of northern Europe. So I don't know your point about "Asians" being harder to convert than western pagans. It might just have to do with tolerance.

Catholicism didn't exist because there was no orthodox church nor protestant christianity.
It was just christianity.

Catholicism was started by Nimrod of Babylon 4000 years ago; Roman Catholicism is Mystery Babylon.

Is that why the Romans had to violently suppress the Pagan religion through death penalties and the destruction of temples?

Christianities spread is inextricably tied up with the political power wielded by Christians, and whilst your points are true about the role of development to ignore the role played by Christian intolerance and military dominance is nonsensical

>. Priests did not convert by the sword, they converted by the word, st. Boniface is an example, he preached with fire and conviction, and the most violence he committed was cutting down the odin tree, but never an muzzie tier "convert or die" shit.

"we wont force you to convert, we will simply just crimimalise your religion, bar you from public office, destroy your temples (and ban the construction of new ones) and if you attempt to flout these laws around this we will fine and later on simply have you killed by the government"

It was just an educated guess. Maybe i was wrong about the Asia part?
also
>asia was converted before europe
this is news to me!

>Is that why the Romans had to violently suppress the Pagan religion through death penalties and the destruction of temples?
[citation needed]

>stuff that didn't happen, the post.
please cite sources, i need proof that what you are saying happened. Now i may not be a master historian, but i do know my church history and this pretty much never happened as far as i can recollect. Either you are trying to deceive by lying about this history, or you have been deceived.
I hope its the latter.

1. Chirstians never had seats of power, they were concerned with the church only, so about the only power they had was indirect influence over the eperor (see Aryans, Constantine, and Eusebius of Nicomedia).
2. When Constantine recognized christianity in the edict of melan, he did not criminalize pagan religions and allowed them to continue. Most pagans switched to christianity for the reasons addressed earlier in this thread.
3. being fined or killed for pagan worship was only done historically by the Muslims, even when the Christians conquered Israel they allowed the Muslims to continue their worship in peace without having to pay fines. One Muslim scholar praised the Christians for this (his tomb was desecrated recently by ISIS for his pro-Christian statements).

The only real exception was the Inquisitions.

>C. Th. XVI.x.4: It is decreed that in all places and all cities the temples should be closed at once, and after a general warning, the opportunity of sinning be taken from the wicked. We decree also that we shall cease from making sacrifices. And if anyone has committed such a crime, let him be stricken with the avenging sword. And we decree that the property of the one executed shall be claimed by the city, and that rulers of the provinces be punished in the same way, if they neglect to punish such crimes. Constantine and Constans Augusti.
sourcebooks.fordham.edu/halsall/source/codex-theod1.asp

For more general one which includes things like bans on converting Christians and the like see

fourthcentury.com/imperial-laws-chart-395/

In general though check out the Theodosian decrees which is when the Christian government in Rome really started the extermination of the pagan faith.

It because they are retarded, Cucktianity offers a God that gives any human A DINDU NUFFIN rationalization to anything they do.

> Chirstians never had seats of power, they were concerned with the church only

this is fucking hilarious

>please cite sources, i need proof that what you are saying happened.

See
>Either you are trying to deceive by lying about this history, or you have been deceived.
Or you could be a bit more humble and consider that you yourself could be wrong

What you seem to be doing is acting as though because Constantine showed tolerance that later Roman Emperors did as well.

A lot of the time when a missionary introduces Christianity to a pagan people, they “convert” only in the sense that they accept Jesus/Yahweh as A god, rather than THE God, among a pantheon of the gods they already had. This is why some naive missionaries would report that they had converted a tribe almost instantly to Christianity, when what really happened was the tribal people said, “Jesus? He sounds like a cool god. Here, we’ll set up a shrine to him next to our shrines of Bongobongo and Tzuti.”
Abrahamic religions are rare for not tolerating any syncretism. Most belief systems around the world have no problem with integrating new gods into their worship.

oh, i never knew that!
Thanks for letting me know user.

Why do you think it happened, was it the church's fault or was it constantine trying to get the support of Christians?

Personally i think it made sense if Constantine was trying to appeal to and unify the massive Christian populace, as sacrifice was not condoned by the church or practiced by it.

I mean in terms of political office. From my understanding church and state were still separate at the time. I might be wrong though, like i said: not an expert here.

>What you seem to be doing is acting as though because Constantine showed tolerance that later Roman Emperors did as well.
apologies, my only knowledge of the emperors or Christian Rome was Constantine, i have only heard passing information about his son and not much else, such as that his son was a strident Aryan.
Apologies, it appears i was partly wrong.

Constantine did nothing. It was his successors that went full retard.

>Why do you think it happened, was it the church's fault or was it constantine trying to get the support of Christians?
I think it was more his successors who were Christians trying to create a Christian society more so that just trying to appease urban Christians. Which why you would also have the Emperors shut down Philosophical schools like Plato's Academy

> From my understanding church and state were still separate at the time
Only in the sense that the Emperor was not a Pope or Patriarch, otherwise the state played a heavy role in religious matters.

>Apologies, it appears i was partly wrong.
Apology accepted. Rome has a long history and much like Islam you see a very different picture when Christianity is weak as opposed to when it became a dominant political force

>I think it was more his successors...
>Only in the sense that the Emperor...
lesson learned: don't let church and state get intimate.

>Apology accepted. Rome...
This is true. Christianity really played a huge role in western history, which is probably why it's been mentioned about 100 times so far in my history text-book.

>asia was converted before europe
this is news to me!

Well, I don't know the exact dates, but this was built around Charlemagne's time as an official memorial of a century of Christianity in China. Weren't Slavs and Vikings not Christians at the time? It was a minority though, and generally more popular among Turks/Mongols than Han Chinese.

Anyway, I know you mean east Asia by Asia but I'm pretty sure the earliest converted regions of Christianity were located in Asia, so yes Asia was converted before Europe.

In case you're wondering what factors led to a presence in China, it was the growth of the Silk Road, centuries of influence of both Persia and the Aramaic language in the neighboring Central Asia, and the schism of the "Nestorian" Church of the East for which proselytization supported their contact with the world generally.

Violence

I meant to put > before line 2.

Oh, you mean asia minor! In that case that makes more sense, thanks for the clarification.

Do you really have to post like a faggot?

This, basically. When Pizzaro went to Peru to conquer the Incas, he won't the rival tribes by for I political alliances with them. When he went to Huamcayo, he oversaw the baptism of Catalina the Huanca, a Huanca princess, and gave the Huanca nobility a coat of arms legitimizing their status as nibles in exchange for their support and conversion to catholicism.

What an absolute load of bollocks.

How do i post like a pagan?

>It was just christianity'
Throughout the whole existance of christianity there has never been such a thing as 'just christianity'. It has always been sectarian.

>I mean in terms of political office. From my understanding church and state were still separate at the time. I might be wrong though, like i said: not an expert here.
Seperation of church and state doesn't mean that religious people are barred from holding public office. Plenty of roman statesmen were christian even before it became the official state religion.

How old are you exactly? I don't mean to be rude but you're coming off as someone who's just now getting the basics of christianity from his religious studies.

Missionaries will give you food and education if you convert. Simples

Missionaries give you food regardless of if you convert.
When classic Rome fell into chaos and disorder, Christians were the ones keeping local communities together through Godly love and kindness.

I don't see how that have anything to do with what I wrote but yeah basically. The catholic church took up the mantle of collapsed the WRE as uniter of western europe. It wasn't just love and kindness though.

Its simple.
>burn down thier old houses of worship.
>threaten to kill them if you see them doing the spooky old dances, be sure to shoot them if they gather in large groups and start singing
>prevent them from collecting materials they need to practice
>force them to learn your language and kill the ones who speak the old devils language
>kidnap thier children and teach them that thier old religion is satanic, beat them for not speaking English, and just beat them all the time.

Do that for several generations and a couple centuries and they will "Readily" abandon thier old religion.

That happened quite a bit, where someone would come in, conquer the area, and change the religion to theirs.

Anti-pagan laws could only come about after enough citizens converted to warrant changing the State religion. You know how unlikely it sounds that Romans would worship a Jew crucified in some far off province most have never seen, whose divinity was based off the God of Jews?

Sick burn

I don't know how you got that impression. Maybe you misread and thought I was the one saying that's "news to me" and repeating what I had just read or something like that. Everything else I said was just a response to that. The notion that "Abrahamic religion" just doesn't "penetrate" into the Far East is widespread enough to have just been mentioned in this thread, whereas it was factually present in China (influenced by Buddhism) before certain swathes of Europe. For that matter I'm pretty sure what I discussed is not viewed as "the basics of Christianity" but ecclesiastical history. And my age is not relevant as I am from a background where basic CotE history is taught long before any "religious studies" class, and where anyone taking such a class is older than the average Veeky Forums user. That's probably why I took the opportunity to bring it up.

Stealing this

Because it's true

well it's sect if Christianity and many of those places in europe started catholic, so what point are you really making that justI guess your or user's original racist post? Absolutely nothing of course. Oh bonus stupid points for the fact most Africans aren't of the catholic sect.

Because it's the truth

it's a sect of*
damn phone.

>implying
European colonialists just caught a lucky streak with gunpowder and the Ottomans did a similar thing with conversion efforts in the Caucasus.

Yeah, sorry about that. I seem to have conflated you with a couple of earlier posts that together painted the image of someone fresh from a cursory lesson on the history of christianity.

>it was all luck, goy!

Well meme'd my friend!

Alright. No problem.

Miracles were real

They also get massive sperg outs if they ever see the old faith or something that resembles it vaguely which triggers them.

Your last step helps set that up because it starts a chain of generational abuse.

In Canada we have Natives who would cringe at seeing any indigenous dance or ritual because they had the love of God beaten into them as a kid.

retarded.

>society dominated by homicidal maniacs who use their unorganized pagan religion to justify an endless cycle of raiding, ritual warfare, and revenge slaying
>pagans have no perception of kindness or charity being a good thing, but rather a sign of weakness. Women are beaten to keep them in line, men are too busy fighting in somebody else's war to notice their own children
>Christians come along, tell people there's a better way to live. Treat the women with kindness, build orphanages and schools for the children
>Lo and behold, half the population now no longer wants anything to do with the old ways, while another quarter of them were young enough to remember the kindness that the Christians showed them while Daddy was laying drunk in a ditch or too busy hunting other humans for sport or riches to notice them.
>Christian investments in the next generation and their prohibitions against contraception or population control pay off in a growth spurt which causes their population to simply outgrow the pagans. Pagans are now converting faster than new ones are being born.
>Within a few generations everyone is Christian, neighbors live in relative harmony with one another. Cannibalism, raids, and endemic ritual warfare are now a thing of the past.

Fuck off protshit

But they're not any longer?

You're conflating christianity with civilisation.

The two are inextricably linked.

>The catholic church took up the mantle of collapsed the WRE as uniter of western europe.
speak english please.

it really is when you find out the pagans had rampant homosexuality in their communities.

go for it.

this is oretty much it.

Truth hurts, papist. Know where you come from, so you can know where you're going.

Protip: It's about 2300 degrees Celsius.

Of course they are.

No, no it is not. No matter how many times you mistype it.

I agree with this guy. Super cringey and also woefully ignorant of pagan theology

Do you really believe all of this crap or are you trolling?

>Anti-pagan laws could only come about after enough citizens converted to warrant changing the State religion.

How so?

>Abrahamic religions are rare for not tolerating any syncretism
Christianity is stupid synecretic

No they're not you absolute fucktard.

I don't speak-a vely good engrish!

Then don't imply the opposite.

Catholics aren't Christian