Could a 'nicer' Christianity have still been influentual?

In OTL Christianity, which seems to me as a respectful agnostice to have many good features in principle, seems to have been deeply influenced by authoritarianism, anti semitism and mysogyny in practice

Could a gentler faith have still had mass membership?

Is authoritarianism to some extent implicit in any mono theism?
 
I don't think so. Early Christianity flourished without being 'mean.' I'd say its more a result of the environment. If Europe went Mithraic instead, it likely would have been mean as well. Though, perhaps an Esoteric religion might not be authoritarian, or at least in the same way.
 
My guess is that would be run over by even "less nice" Moslems. Remember the Crusades happened because the Moslems attacked Constantinople so they were the ones who started it.
 
Well if one looks to the teachings of Jesus, it was always meant to be "nice".

So are we talking about the human construction of the Church or the original message of Jesus?

I only ask because there's a fundamental difference between "Christianity" & the "Church".
 
i doubt it. how do you draw the great unwashed to the cross without the fire and brimstone and divine annotated exceptionalism?
 
Well if one looks to the teachings of Jesus, it was always meant to be "nice".
Really, because I seem to recall this:
'Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth.
I have not come to bring peace but a sword.'
Matthew 10:34

I'm not entirely sure what a 'nice' guy would do with a sword...:D
 
Really, because I seem to recall this:
'Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth.
I have not come to bring peace but a sword.'
Matthew 10:34

I'm not entirely sure what a 'nice' guy would do with a sword...:D

Ah, but according to the Gospel of Thomas:

Thomas 16 said:
Jesus said, "Perhaps people think that I have come to cast peace upon the world. They do not know that I have come to cast conflicts upon the earth: fire, sword, war.

For there will be five in a house: there'll be three against two and two against three, father against son and son against father, and they will stand alone."

I think he was saying this to reject Messianic philosophy. Maybe if the word was changed to something else, . . .
 
Really, because I seem to recall this:
'Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth.
I have not come to bring peace but a sword.'
Matthew 10:34

I'm not entirely sure what a 'nice' guy would do with a sword...:D


Nice example of how to distort the original message. You would make for a great bishop. :D

Seriously, though, Jesus knew that his message would be violently disputed by the unbelievers. This verse was not a message, however, for the how believers where to behave. Instead Jesus gave the following...


The New Commandment...


Love one another as I have loved you.

&;

Take the log out of your own eye first, before you take the speck out of your brother's eye

& how about;

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
 
I'm joking DMA. I don't think that Jesus came to murder us with a sword. Most of what he said was okay.


My bad. I gathered you were. I will admit, though, that my dry Australian humour sometimes gets lost in the translation... or interpretation... so to speak :D
 
Last edited:
Ananias and Sapphira ring a bell? Incidentally, this makes me wonder why Chris Paolini named that dragon of his after somebody Yahweh smited because she didn't give him any money. Did he have the soft bigotry of low expectations? :D
 
Well I could have also mentioned the bit about turning the other cheek, but somehow that's been reinterpreted as...

if someone slaps you, call in an airstrike and naplam the bastard! :D
 
How are you gentlemen!! All your base are belong to us. You are on the way to destruction. You have no chance to survive make your time.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
 
Top