No Christianity

[carlton_bach]

Very likely I would think. Could it spread? Unlikely since it would be thereligion of the Roman's enemies. But who knows?

The Roman world didn't operate on these assumptions. Most Romans couldn't conceive of *a* religion.- There was religion, it was what people did. Zoroastrianism would not have been thought of any differently initially, so the only way it would be persecuted is if it included elements the Romans found offensive. And even then, their persecution mechanisms weren't exactly effective. BTW, it has been argued that Mithraism *is* Zoroastrianism for the Mediterranean market.

In a world without Christianity, there are numerous contenders for the position, but unless one of them embraces the nulla salus extra ecclesiam mindset, we are unlikely to see a monolithic European religion or much forcible conversion.
Roman religion should not be underestimated - the state cult was state cult - diplomatic ritual, never designed to stir the emotions or do anything other than convince the world and the gods that everything was working as it should. We don't get excited about playing the national anthem at state visits, but that doesn't mean patriotism is dead. At the level of personal and folk religion, it was very much alive.
But better contenders for spreading were Isis/Serapis worship, the Sol/Dolichene Iove/Mithra cluster, post-Temple Judaism (the Alexandrian Greek branch more than the Aramaic-speaking one), and the 'Rhenish Mercury' (a Romanised framework for local religions rather similar to what modern neopagans often call the 'Celtic religion').
I don't think it'll make the Europeans worse people, or that Christianity made the better ones, but it may well render them less effective at conquest and control. Europe and the Middle East developed concepts of homogenous state identity, spiritual allegiance, memetic warfare and genocidal politics under the influence of Christianity and Islam that were very important elements in the eventual near-world dominance of these areas. Take those away, and European dominance may well look more like the Viking era - a military predominance dissolved in local cultures over time.

 

[Emperor Qianlong]

Wow, I'm very impressed by that.

 

[Max Sinister]

A quasi-Islam could still emerge. There won't be any Christians in Arabia, but there were also Jews. So TTL's Islam may have some more commandments, or also some influences of the Sol Invictus cult. Maybe the Arabs might convert to Mithraism too, since it's a religion for warriors. And as many have pointed out, the hour of the Arabs had to come. This quasi-Islam might even be named "Islam" (Meaning: Submission [to God]), and be started by a prophet Mohammed. OTL Mohammed would be butterflied away, of course.

 

[Hendryk]

My idea is that, in the early centuries CE, the Roman elites would increasingly adhere to a variant of Stoicism, perhaps to the point of gradually turning it into a state ideology, while of course remaining faithful to the classical pantheon for civic purposes. Meanwhile the masses would likely turn to this or that mystery cult, which have the dual advantage of providing a spiritually satisfying focus for one's life, while having a place in the preexisting system. As I observed on a previous occasion, this may make the religious situation of the Roman empire more like that of the Chinese one. And as the latter demonstrates, such an arrangement can prove surprisingly durable.

 

[MerryPrankster]

MarkA,

The gladiatorial games were abolished in part due to Christianity, along with the crucifixion of criminals and the branding of slaves on the face. All this stays if Christianity does not exist, although it is possible that some other religion might push for the abolition.

Even if there were moral pagans and immoral "Christians," that does not mean that the triumph of Christianity did not improve the morals of society in general.

Plus, later on, it was the evangelical sort Christianity that played a role in the abolition of slavery (at least in the British Empire, which I believe was the first state to do so).

 

[Hendryk]

Even if there were moral pagans and immoral "Christians," that does not mean that the triumph of Christianity did not improve the morals of society in general.

Or vice versa. From a cross-cultural perspective, once one sheds the usual prejudices, it doesn't appear that non-Christian societies are, on the whole, any worse places in moral terms than Christian ones.

On the issue of slavery, I believe it would have died out, Christianity or no Christianity, once it was no longer economically sensible, probably to be replaced by a form of peonage not unlike that of serfdom in OTL's medieval Europe. The fact that slavery was reinvented in the early modern era by thoroughly Christanized societies is evidence enough that Christianity can and does live comfortably with the mass enslavement of human beings whenever convenient.

 

[Ran Exilis]

Or vice versa. From a cross-cultural perspective, once one sheds the usual prejudices, it doesn't appear that non-Christian societies are, on the whole, any worse places in moral terms than Christian ones.

Keep in mind that morality is a subjective thing, and that the Greeks, Romans, Germans, Celts and Slavs all had their own moral beliefs about what was right, wrong, appropriate or taboo.

You're right that allmost all lasting society develop at least some kind of system of morals and standards which keep the society stable. And yes, there are usually good things about those morals.

But that still means that moral standards can differ between societies for the worse - some practices, like honor-killing, female circumcision and forced marriages, are perfectly allright by the moral standards of some societies.

And the introduction of early Christian moral standards in the Roman Empire indeed have changed a few things for the better, such as the abolishment of gladiator-fights, crucifiction and the branding of slaves, like Merryprankster had already pointed out.

On the issue of slavery, I believe it would have died out, Christianity or no Christianity, once it was no longer economically sensible, probably to be replaced by a form of peonage not unlike that of serfdom in OTL's medieval Europe.

I agree, I'll have to check some details on this, but I'm pretty sure that after the Roman era in the West, slavery was never abolished, but just fell out of use. Only with the conquest of the New World was the practice of slavery revived, first with the Native Americans and some other groups (Polynesians, etc.) and then finally with black Africans, because they were resistant to the European diseases, as well as for being sturdier and better adapted to the tropical conditions.

Whenever Europeans turned to slavery, that was mainly for purely practical and financial advantages of slaves over free laborers in those circumstances. But as soon as slavery became impractical, it quickly fell out of use and disappeared.

That's why we hear so little about the Native American slaves that the Spanish had.

The fact that slavery was reinvented in the early modern era by thoroughly Christanized societies is evidence enough that Christianity can and does live comfortably with the mass enslavement of human beings whenever convenient.

Keep in mind that Christianity is very sensitive to syncreticism and absorbing local customs and ideas, and that religions and religious communities can be affected by local ideas and customs, even to the point that common customs contradict the actual teachings of the religion.

For example:we all know that Islam quite strictly forbids the recreational consumption of alcohol, yet this doesn't prevent many millions Turks from appreciating a good glass of whisky or raki. And there are much worse examples than this, mind you!

So if you say that Christian societies can live comfortably with such rather atrocious practices are going on like slavery as seen in the Americas or the ruthless exploitation of laborers during the Industrial Revolution, then - yes, you're right about that.

But Christian societies don't neccesarily stick to what the actual Christian religion and scriptures teach, so Christian societies can actually live quite comfortable with things that absolutely don't go with actual Christianity.

..
One footnote: it really suprises me that nobody here has mentioned anything about Neoplatonism yet.

Neoplatonism was the philosophical aspect of the late Greco-Roman pagan religion, and unlike the usual everyday traditional religion, it was spiritually very strong. In OTL, traces of Neoplatonism survived until the very fall of the Byzantine Empire to the Turks, and a number of muslim sects in the Middle East have been seriously influenced by Neoplatonic thought and concepts.

In fact, the last pagan Roman emperor, Julianus Apostata (Julian the Apostate), was a passionate adherant of the Neoplatonic philosophy.

It is my guess, that without Christianity, the old traditional pagan religion would be slowly transformed and deepened by Neoplatonism, and especially if/when the old traditions start to lose their religious significance, Europe will propably be dominated by a developed form of Neoplatonism in which the old traditions have relatively little importance.

And one more detail, a strong presence of Neoplatonism (which would be quite likely in a no-Christianity TL, hence the other major rivalling sects of Neoplatonism were usually pseudo-Christian Gnostic sects, who would also be absent from a TL without Jesus) would also quite likely contain the spreading of Zoroastrian ideas and beliefs in the Roman Empire.

 

[Cloudy Vortex]

I don't know about the Zoroastrian thing, but, if not given a patently better option, people prefer keeping the previous course. "If it's not broke, or not broke badly enough, don't fix it," is a creedo of our species. I suspect that the triumph of Christianity in the empire was almost an accident: a series of fortunate (if you're Christian) events over the course of a hundred years.

Is anyone even going to hazard a timeline?

 

[mojojojo]

This has been touched on before but not answered in depth, how do you think such a world would turn out for the native americans, polynesians and other non-western people under western control?

 

[Keenir]

This has been touched on before but not answered in depth, how do you think such a world would turn out for the native americans, polynesians and other non-western people under western control?

they would be eaten by the butterflies.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

They existed for centuries, millenium without contact with the occidentals, dude.

 

[MarkA]

MarkA,

The gladiatorial games were abolished in part due to Christianity, along with the crucifixion of criminals and the branding of slaves on the face. All this stays if Christianity does not exist, although it is possible that some other religion might push for the abolition.

Even if there were moral pagans and immoral "Christians," that does not mean that the triumph of Christianity did not improve the morals of society in general.

Plus, later on, it was the evangelical sort Christianity that played a role in the abolition of slavery (at least in the British Empire, which I believe was the first state to do so).

Christianity did act out of morality in these things.

Crucifixion was abolished because it was the method that Jesus was killed by and therefore deemed unsuitable. The games were abolished because of the pagan elements inherent in them and the fear they could be used as a rallying point for dissaffected pagans. Chariot races on the other hand could be used as secular form of entertainment.

Branding of slaves on the face appears to have been a passing phase that probably died out for economic reasons. References to the disfigurement of prisioners and slaves sent to the mines, for example, in the first and second centuries talk about branding but not on the face.

Other forms of execution were used until in christian societies util modern times like hanging drawing and quartering, flaying alive, burning at the stake, as well as ingenious methods of torture. Evangelical preachers in the US have been quoted as approving torture against 'terrorists' even those not charged with any crime.

As for slavery, it existed in christian societies for centuries. Even in the religious South of the US. Although Wilberforce was a christian, his success was due to the support of the liberal, agnostic political elements in Britain. He was opposed by many believers.

 

[MarkA]

I meant to say christianity did NOT act out of morality. Sorry about that.

 

[Leo Caesius]

For example:we all know that Islam quite strictly forbids the recreational consumption of alcohol, yet this doesn't prevent many millions Turks from appreciating a good glass of whisky or raki.

That's because the specific mazhab of Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) to which the Turks and most other former denizens of the Ottoman empire is famously ambivalent on the consumption of alcohol; wine made from grapes is considered harram, but other alcohol is explicitly permitted so long as the drinker can hold his liquor.

Obviously, individual interpretations of this school of law will vary. The Taliban were Hanafi, just like the Turks, but they forbade all intoxicants.

One footnote: it really suprises me that nobody here has mentioned anything about Neoplatonism yet.

Carlton will have more to say about this, I'm sure, but my impression of the Neoplatonists is that it was a philosophical movement rather than a religion - that is to say, it was largely endemic to the intelligensia, including its Christian and Jewish members.

 

[Keenir]

That's because the specific mazhab of Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) to which the Turks and most other former denizens of the Ottoman empire is famously ambivalent on the consumption of alcohol; wine made from grapes is considered harram, but other alcohol is explicitly permitted so long as the drinker can hold his liquor.

interesting.

I'd previously heard it was simply "do not cloud your mind" (ie don't drink to excess)....that and Turkey (I'm assuming he's referring to the modern Turks) is a secular state.

thank you for the clarification.

 

[carlton_bach]

MarkA,

The gladiatorial games were abolished in part due to Christianity, along with the crucifixion of criminals and the branding of slaves on the face. All this stays if Christianity does not exist, although it is possible that some other religion might push for the abolition.

Gladiatorial games were abolished by Christian emperors, for reasons we do not fully understand but which were more likely religious than moral, and may have been influenced by political realities (many earlier emperors disliked them, but none did anything, presumably because they resided in Rome). It is possible that a Stoic emperor could do the same, but I doubt it. That kind iof thing figured under 'duty' to them. But the abolition of crucifixion is nothing whatsoever to do with humanity. It was abolished purely for symbolic reasons. After all, the Theodosian and Justinianic laws make liberal use of mutilations, burning alive, and public torture. The 'branding on the face' idea is based almost completely on a very small base of archeological finds of Late Antique slave collars. The recent discovery of a similar one in Herculaneum casts doubt on that interpretation. In general, the legal status of slaes in the Roman Empire improved - very slightly - in the first and second centuries AD and deteriorated again in the fourth. Good it never was. And we have some indications that the large-scale dissolution of slave estates in Western Europe did not happen until around 1000, later in parts of the Mediterranean. There simply is no corellation between Christian influence and opposition to slavery until around 1750.

Even if there were moral pagans and immoral "Christians," that does not mean that the triumph of Christianity did not improve the morals of society in general.

True, but the evidence is rather thin on the ground. Point remains that most religions are functions of the spociety they exist in, and neither Late Rome nor Dark Age Europe were a good place for peace-loving, meek and humane folk.

Plus, later on, it was the evangelical sort Christianity that played a role in the abolition of slavery (at least in the British Empire, which I believe was the first state to do so).

Actually, revolutionary France was. But the Christian influence in British abolitionism is undoubted. Yet - again - this is the Christianity of Enlightenment Europe, not that of Late Rome or the Frankish Empire. And interestingly, the church in areas that depended on slaery to maintain the fabric of their societies rarely advocated abolition.

 

[Leo Caesius]

I'd previously heard it was simply "do not cloud your mind" (ie don't drink to excess)....that and Turkey (I'm assuming he's referring to the modern Turks) is a secular state.

That's a big part of it, but there is also a hadith to the effect that Ali (IIRC) once had a dinner party at which he served wine, but only flogged the guests who drank to excess and got falling-down drunk.

 

[carlton_bach]

One footnote: it really suprises me that nobody here has mentioned anything about Neoplatonism yet.

Neoplatonism was the philosophical aspect of the late Greco-Roman pagan religion, and unlike the usual everyday traditional religion, it was spiritually very strong. In OTL, traces of Neoplatonism survived until the very fall of the Byzantine Empire to the Turks, and a number of muslim sects in the Middle East have been seriously influenced by Neoplatonic thought and concepts.

In fact, the last pagan Roman emperor, Julianus Apostata (Julian the Apostate), was a passionate adherant of the Neoplatonic philosophy.

It is my guess, that without Christianity, the old traditional pagan religion would be slowly transformed and deepened by Neoplatonism, and especially if/when the old traditions start to lose their religious significance, Europe will propably be dominated by a developed form of Neoplatonism in which the old traditions have relatively little importance.

And one more detail, a strong presence of Neoplatonism (which would be quite likely in a no-Christianity TL, hence the other major rivalling sects of Neoplatonism were usually pseudo-Christian Gnostic sects, who would also be absent from a TL without Jesus) would also quite likely contain the spreading of Zoroastrian ideas and beliefs in the Roman Empire.

The problem with Neoplatonism is that it iesn't really a religion per se. As you say, it underlay much of Greco-Christian (and Greco-Judaic) theology as well as informing both Gnostic and traditional pagan interpretations. At the same time, it never formulated any position on its own. I can certainly see it as a pervasive influence on whatever belief systems ancient society eventually adopts, but there is no reason to think it will prove any more hostile to Zoroastrianism or Buddhism than it proved to Christianity or Judaism. You could even argue that both these faiths are more congenial to its particular worldview than is traditional paganism.

 

[Paul Spring]

One thing that I'm pretty sure of is that European or "Western" culture as we know it is not going to exist. Depending on what you think of Euro-western culture, that could either be a bad thing or a good thing.

Though Christians were certainly as capable of cruelty as any other group, I think that it may be considered significant that certain versions of Christianity was, as far as I know, the only religious movements in history to unequivocally comdemn slavery as evil. There is a school of thought which argues that the modern western conception of each individual human having great worth apart from whatever group this person is born into derives ultimately from the Christian view of each individual human soul having great worth apart from visible, worldly considerations. If this is true (which is of course debatable), at least one interpretation of the Christian world view may have been a vital component in the idea both individual rights and universal human rights.

Of course, it is quite possible that a world without Christianity would arrive at similar ideas through a very different route. The question of what a world without Christianity would be like depends heavily upon which other systems of thought and belief would exist in its place.

 

[Ran Exilis]

That's because the specific mazhab of Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) to which the Turks and most other former denizens of the Ottoman empire is famously ambivalent on the consumption of alcohol; wine made from grapes is considered harram, but other alcohol is explicitly permitted so long as the drinker can hold his liquor.

Obviously, individual interpretations of this school of law will vary. The Taliban were Hanafi, just like the Turks, but they forbade all intoxicants.

...details.

But nonetheless, the vast majority of muslim theologians and ulama's agree that the Islamic teachings effectively forbid muslims from consuming anything that can make a person drunk, and many (propably most) adherants of the Hanifi jurisprudence agree with that, since not only Afghan, but also by far most Indian, Pakistani and Bengali muslims agree that any alcoholic drink is haram.

...but the Hanifi jurisprudence has a reputation of being the most rational and liberal of the four schools of Sunni jurisprudence, even though this jurisprudence can be quite strict on some subjects (I once found an interesting article about the orthodox Hanifi view of music in Islam, and the Hanifi view on this turned out to be the most strict of all jurisprudences on this subject...)

But anyway, my point was that in certain societies, things can become acceptable even if their religion officially forbids it.
And anyway, I think I've still made that point quite clear.

Another example I could have given, was the culture of slavery among the nomadic (Hamitic or Arab) muslim peoples of the Sahara, who for centuries have enslaved people from the indiginous black African peoples who lived besouth the Sahara desert, even after most of these peoples had converted to Islam.

These nomads persisted in the old customs of slavery, that are based on racial differences, while Islamic law clearly prescribes that a muslim can own only a non-muslim as a slave.

And along with that those old customs, an ancient mentality of racism has survived among most of these peoples as well, and the current Darfur conflict is a clear example of that racism, even though it is something very strictly forbidden in Islam.

...that's a far more serious example of how local customs can infringe on religious laws and teachings...

Carlton will have more to say about this, I'm sure, but my impression of the Neoplatonists is that it was a philosophical movement rather than a religion - that is to say, it was largely endemic to the intelligensia, including its Christian and Jewish members.

But even philosophical movements can have a strong effect on the development of a religion, and it can very well serve to deepen a religion, and give it more coherence.

After all, there are some ancient and very complex philosophies in Hinduism as well, yet even though these philosophies are not quite involved in the everyday life of the common Hindu, they still play a very important part in Hinduism as a whole.

Then there's also the fact that such philosophies can result in their own spin-off sects, religions and new philosophies - such as Buddhism and Confucianism etc.

And in a no-Christianity scenario, I'd say it is quite likely that at some point, there's going to be a number of such spin-off sects and philosophies, will no doubt be unique philosophies and religions on their own, yet will be comparable to movements like Buddhism, Jainism, Confucianism, etc.

... that is to say, it was largely endemic to the intelligensia, including its Christian and Jewish members.

But that last detail is rather odd, since the Neoplatonic philosophy was very polytheistic by its nature.

Nonetheless, I indeed have heard about many Christians and Jews who tried to combine the Neoplatonic philosophy with Christian or Jewish theology. Usually with little success, by the way, which is like I said before, most propably because of the strong polytheistic nature of Neoplatonism.

And that's propably also the reason why "mainstream" Neoplatonism always remained a typically polytheistic philosophy.

I admit it had some effect on individual Jewish, Christian and even Muslim scholars and philosophers, yet all the true Neoplatonists were strongly polytheistic.