Which Religions are easily convertible to which religions

The Indo-European religion is very adaptable for sure.

HOWEVER, Hinduism as we know it emerged much later, in the Medieval era. They didn't merge native religions, so much as they came to encompass the local cults (which range from Vedic religions to unrelated cults). Ancient India was more like China in that regard, and the development of Hinduism was like the development of Shenism (the Chinese Folk Religion), and it's specific philosophical schools of thoughts akin to that of different Chinese religious schools and sects.

Buddhism is older than Hinduism in this sense— and Buddhism was not a reaction to the Vedic faith (although the Buddha frequently engage Brahmins in debates) as the Shakya did not have Brahmanism as a major influence in their culture. Buddhism co-opted the Vedic cosmology, but rejected almost wholesale the entire faith system.

Agree with the first part- disagree with the second.

It is definitely true that the Śramanic traditions that arose were of a different thought system to the more theistic Vedic fold and represent the re-emergence of the myths and cosmology of a pre-Aryan upperclass. However it had been co-opted into the Vedic fold to an extant as Upaniśads and the Atharvaveda mention a lot about the ‘sky-clad’ Keśin monks who ponder the meaning of reality and the divine.

The region east of Kāuśambi most likely lay outside the fold of what is recognised as the organised Brahmanical fold of the Kuru-Pañcalas but were still Indo-Aryans that followed a faith that was at it’s core Indo-European in heritage and most likely worshipped and revered a similar set of deities. The Atharvaveda even mentions the Magadhas, labelling them as impure and barbaric but takes painstaking care to not call them ánārya or non Aryans, a label that it does offer to the hill-tribes that lay north of the Kuru country.
 

Philip

Donor
THE point, is that Monophysites assert a single nature to Christ. As the Muslims do (albeit of course the Muslims insist Jesus is completely human), therefore, it's easier to swing an argument towards the Muslim point of view.

Monophysites assert that Jesus had one nature that is new nature that resulted from the Incarnation by joining the Divine nature with the human nature. Skipping the technical language, the human nature is overwhelmed by the divine nature. Keep in mind that they confess weekly

We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-Begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages; Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not created, of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made; Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy spirit and the Virgin Mary and became Man.
Their objection to Chalcedon is in the interpretation of 'was incarnate of the Holy spirit and the Virgin Mary and became Man'. All the rest they completely agree with, and those statements are completely incompatible with Islam. The dispute over that last phrase is that the Chalcedon position separates the divine and human natures too much --- that it doesn't treat the incarnate Jesus as divine enough. This is not an easy swing to the Muslim position.

And this doesn't even get into their theology of what Jesus accomplished, again incompatible with Islam but almost completely compatible with Chalcedonian Christianity. I would recommend reading through their worship service before declaring that it is a easy shift to the Islamic concept of Christ.

Certainly there were converts from Monophystism to Islam, but it was not because the two were close to agreement on their concept of Jesus.


The Monophysites of Syria welcomed the Muslims when they invaded Roman Syria, because of religious disputes.

This was not due to some perceived similarity with Islam. It had far more to do with their treatment under the Roman government.
 
Last edited:
I suggest any religious meme-plex that easily let its devotees switch to a different meme-plex would not have survived long enough for us to notice it.
Instead I suggest that circumstances dominate the decision to convert.
There are very few non muslims in iran not because islam from zoroastrian is particularly compatible but because politically economically and socially there were lots of good reasons to change.
 

Anawrahta

Banned
I suggest any religious meme-plex that easily let its devotees switch to a different meme-plex would not have survived long enough for us to notice it.
Instead I suggest that circumstances dominate the decision to convert.
There are very few non muslims in iran not because islam from zoroastrian is particularly compatible but because politically economically and socially there were lots of good reasons to change.
I suggest any religious meme-plex that easily let its devotees switch to a different meme-plex would not have survived long enough for us to notice it.
Instead I suggest that circumstances dominate the decision to convert.
There are very few non muslims in iran not because islam from zoroastrian is particularly compatible but because politically economically and socially there were lots of good reasons to change.

I don't think this is accurate since a majority portion of the conversion was likely forced. There are very few Sunni Persian speakers in Iran proper, with most of the Sunni population being peripheral peoples such as Baluchis, and this contrasts with the pre-safavid era which had very, very few twelver shiites in fact almost none. The Safavids converted Sunni muslim land into almost whole twelver shiite majority with very little initial base to speak of.

Considering how efficiently the Sunni Persian was liquidated, the Zoroastrian Parsi with his great vulnerability was subject to particularly harsher enforcement, and if we factor the genocides under the timurids, Zoroastrianism might have been a silent, but significant religion in Islamic Iran. The extremely peripheral nature of the religion is likely a post-tamerlane artifact.
@John7755 يوحنا
 
I don't think this is accurate since a majority portion of the conversion was likely forced. There are very few Sunni Persian speakers in Iran proper, with most of the Sunni population being peripheral peoples such as Baluchis, and this contrasts with the pre-safavid era which had very, very few twelver shiites in fact almost none. The Safavids converted Sunni muslim land into almost whole twelver shiite majority with very little initial base to speak of.

Considering how efficiently the Sunni Persian was liquidated, the Zoroastrian Parsi with his great vulnerability was subject to particularly harsher enforcement, and if we factor the genocides under the timurids, Zoroastrianism might have been a silent, but significant religion in Islamic Iran. The extremely peripheral nature of the religion is likely a post-tamerlane artifact.
@John7755 يوحنا
You think risk of death is a better motivator than any synergy between the religions? I think you are agreeing with my point or did I misunderstand?
 

Anawrahta

Banned
You think risk of death is a better motivator than any synergy between the religions? I think you are agreeing with my point or did I misunderstand?
I'm not sure on true and exact nature of the transition, but it seems that peaceful conversion tends to be a bit overstated in regards to zoroastrianism in particular. Usually voluntary conversion happen over the course of many generations, with large changes being the aggregate result. Unfortunately ethnic cleansing and violence are tools to achieve this much more quickly. I don't have any direct evidence of this, but timur's effects on population of armenian, assyrian and other caucasian christians seem to provide a possible analogue of this situation, with whole communities erased from existence and demographics shifted considerably. For some ideological bias, many western historians generally find it uncomfortable to discuss these things.I largely agree with you, but with a few exceptions.
Recap: Many conversions were peaceful, but what is considered to be exception may have been the largely the case in some circumstances.
 
The Indo-European religion is very adaptable for sure.

HOWEVER, Hinduism as we know it emerged much later, in the Medieval era. They didn't merge native religions, so much as they came to encompass the local cults (which range from Vedic religions to unrelated cults). Ancient India was more like China in that regard, and the development of Hinduism was like the development of Shenism (the Chinese Folk Religion), and it's specific philosophical schools of thoughts akin to that of different Chinese religious schools and sects.
I have to disagree with you. While the people’s themselves were mixing by the 1500 BCE, it took some time for the Vedic IE religion to begin incorporating native or tribal aspects of the religion. However, Hinduism arose as a syncretia by as early as 1100 BCE, evidenced by the Yaksha cults with the incorporation of IVC descendant and some native tribal beliefs. In fact Hinduism did significantly merge religions together which the Vedic religion oft refused to do: this is evidenced by the emergence of Gods like Vishnu, elevating in status, Krishna, and Kali. Rather by medieval India, Hinduism had reached its Golden Age, with the proliferation of different schools of thought.

Edit: Words
 
Last edited:
Hinduism could probably very easily be converted to Jainism, as Jainism is almost a sect of Hinduism.
Also, considering how Catholic Ireland became, Irish paganism was probably very compatible with Christianity.
 
I have to disagree with you. While the people’s themselves were mixing by the 1500 BCE, it took some time for the Vedic IE religion to begin incorporating native or tribal aspects of the religion. However, Hinduism arose as a syncretia by as early as 1100 BCE, evidenced by the Yaksha cults with the incorporation of IVC descendant and some native tribal beliefs. In fact Hinduism did significantly merge religions together which the Vedic religion oft refused to do: this is evidenced by the emergence of Gods like Vishnu, elevating in status, Krishna, and Kali. Rather by medieval India, Hinduism had reached its Golden Age, with the proliferation of different schools of thought.

Edit: Words

That makes sense. Thank you.
 
Top