How did Abrahamic religions become predominant?

[tomspug]

Here's my thinking. Abraham wasn't a king. He and his family lived in tents, wandering. Sure, the kingdom of Israel was eventually established, but it was, through most of history, an insignificant country that happened to be on a trade route between Egypt and Asia Minor. It survived all of the major empires, even after being totally overtaken by the Persians and ultimately destroyed by the Babylonians.

And after the Roman Empire, not only did the Jewish faith manage to survive untainted for 2000 years, without any particular country to uphold the religion, you've got Christianity, which went from being a Jewish sect to the predominant religion of the former Roman Empire. Of course, the holy empire lasted a while, but even after it declined in influence, the religion itself didn't really change. At worst, you have different denominations who disagree on some minor issues, but they still read the same texts and hold the same core beliefs. I think it's interesting that the religion hasn't evolved over time, depending on who is in charge (especially when the religion and state WEREN'T separate).

Then you have Islam, which I don't know much about, but it is, coincidentally, also Abrahamic, accepting Jesus as a prophet. But I don't know how consistent the religion has been over time...

Anyways, thought I'd bring this up. It's very interesting that the two largest religions in the world have roots in one of the most apparently insignificant countries of the ancient world (not to mention the link to Abraham, who isn't even in recorded history outside of religious texts). Let me know what you think!

 

[Storm]

Christianity and Islam were religions of conquest for centuries, busily creating empires. Judaism wasn't, and you'll note that it's a distinct minority.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

The Jews are predominant because they are stubborn and refuse to change.
The Christians are predominant because they converted the Romans.
The Muslims are predominant because they converted the Turks.
The Abrahamic religions are predominant because the Romans and Turks believed in expansion by conquest and were fairly successful at it.

 

[tomspug]

OK, even if the sword was almost entirely responsible for the spread of both of those religions, it still doesn't explain the coincidence. It also fails to address EVERY OTHER RELIGION that has tried to do the same thing.

 

[kai]

Christianity and Islam were religions of conquest for centuries, busily creating empires. Judaism wasn't, and you'll note that it's a distinct minority.

Thats true,if you take force of arms and Empire out of the equasion Tomspug, you may not have been asking this question.

 

[kai]

OK, even if the sword was almost entirely responsible for the spread of both of those religions, it still doesn't explain the coincidence. It also fails to address EVERY OTHER RELIGION that has tried to do the same thing.

All empires wax and wane

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

OK, even if the sword was almost entirely responsible for the spread of both of those religions, it still doesn't explain the coincidence. It also fails to address EVERY OTHER RELIGION that has tried to do the same thing.

Um, what coincidence? And what other religions have tried to do the same thing? I know a few but they were unsuccessful in recent history. There were some that were very successful in ancient times and only illustrate the point rather than deny it.

 

[Oberon]

Christianity and Islam were religions of conquest for centuries, busily creating empires. Judaism wasn't, and you'll note that it's a distinct minority.

That's true, but the spread of Islam began by conquest with its founder. Christianity, however, converted without conquests for the first several centuries of its existence, and still spread. The roman empire became christian through peaceful conversion (other than the christians who were killed) and even after it was dominately christian pagans were persecuted and their religious sites and works destroyed, but they weren't killed. The goths, gauls, etc, were also converted by missionaries, not by the sword.

 

[tomspug]

Another reason Storm's argument is only valid for a brief period of time is that Christianity has not been spread by the sword SINCE the Roman Empire. It fails to address how it has become the largest religion in the ENTIRE world. Christianity has "failed" to change, no matter where it moves. It still gives credit to Abraham, to Israel, and the Jewish race.

It seems ignorant to give almost all credit to these religion's rise to war alone, because the argument only makes sense for a very limited scope of history.

 

[Storm]

OK, even if the sword was almost entirely responsible for the spread of both of those religions, it still doesn't explain the coincidence. It also fails to address EVERY OTHER RELIGION that has tried to do the same thing.

Sure it does. What other religions have tried to build empires? The Eastern religions are more tolerant, Judaism failed and is a tiny minority, and European paganism was stamped out.

ETA: Also, I think you may be missing the nuance of my statement. It's not as simple as being spread by the sword. Christianity and Islam seek converts, and happened to be the official religions of highly successful imperialists. Between the two, they became predominant.

 

[tomspug]

Um, what coincidence? And what other religions have tried to do the same thing? I know a few but they were unsuccessful in recent history. There were some that were very successful in ancient times and only illustrate the point rather than deny it.

First of all, the idea that Christianity THE RELIGION was spread by the sword and not other religions is spin. The intent of the Roman expansion (which began FAR before Christianity ever took hold of it) was power and authority, having little if anything to do with religion.

Or would you like me to argue that Attila the Hun or Alexander the Great were religious expansionists? Egypt was certainly notorious for impressing their religion on the countries they occupied, and the Roman Empire (pre-Christianity) even moreso.

 

[Storm]

That's true, but the spread of Islam began by conquest with its founder. Christianity, however, converted without conquests for the first several centuries of its existence, and still spread. The roman empire became christian through peaceful conversion (other than the christians who were killed) and even after it was dominately christian pagans were persecuted and their religious sites and works destroyed, but they weren't killed. The goths, gauls, etc, were also converted by missionaries, not by the sword.

Another reason Storm's argument is only valid for a brief period of time is that Christianity has not been spread by the sword SINCE the Roman Empire. It fails to address how it has become the largest religion in the ENTIRE world. Christianity has "failed" to change, no matter where it moves. It still gives credit to Abraham, to Israel, and the Jewish race.

It seems ignorant to give almost all credit to these religion's rise to war alone, because the argument only makes sense for a very limited scope of history.

See post #10, and let me know if it makes a difference.

 

[tomspug]

Sure it does. What other religions have tried to build empires? The Eastern religions are more tolerant, Judaism failed and is a tiny minority, and European paganism was stamped out.

Oh, so they had less war and violence in the East? And they didn't have ANY religious disagreements?

I think you're confusing Americanized, secular versions of whatever religions you're referring to. The Chinese and Indian empires have brutal histories, and currently these countries that consist of predominantly "tolerant" religions are rife with intolerance and civil unrest.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's very interesting that the two largest religions in the world have roots in one of the most apparently insignificant countries of the ancient world (not to mention the link to Abraham, who isn't even in recorded history outside of religious texts). Let me know what you think!

I think classifying Palestine as "one of the most apparently insignificant countries of the ancient world" demonstrates considerable geopolitical ignorance. Israel stood at the crossroads of history, and there were no players that did not understand the significance of the area.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

OK, even if the sword was almost entirely responsible for the spread of both of those religions, it still doesn't explain the coincidence. It also fails to address EVERY OTHER RELIGION that has tried to do the same thing.

Such as?

And the Dharmic religions seem to have done quite well for themselves.

 

[Storm]

Oh, so they had less war and violence in the East? And they didn't have ANY religious disagreements?

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying they don't have a sacred obligation to convert you. Proselytization is an integral part of Christianity and Islam.

 

[tomspug]

I think classifying Palestine as "one of the most apparently insignificant countries of the ancient world" demonstrates considerable geopolitical ignorance.

"Palestine" wasn't a country. It was a territory which as I said was a significant "location" but not ever a powerful empire.

Also, no one has addressed HOW Judaism survived. That, to me, is the most interesting question I brought up.

 

[Storm]

Also, no one has addressed HOW Judaism survived. That, to me, is the most interesting question I brought up.

By refusing to assimilate, often at a very high price. Impressive.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

First of all, the idea that Christianity THE RELIGION was spread by the sword and not other religions is spin. The intent of the Roman expansion (which began FAR before Christianity ever took hold of it) was power and authority, having little if anything to do with religion.

Or would you like me to argue that Attila the Hun or Alexander the Great were religious expansionists? Egypt was certainly notorious for impressing their religion on the countries they occupied, and the Roman Empire (pre-Christianity) even moreso.

Well, let me put it another way. Religion is not spread by the sword, it is spread by the winner. You're correct that the Romans did not take up the sword with the intention of spreading Christianity, nor did the Turks to spread Islam. But that doesn't change the fact that they were expansionist who conquored most of the world and brought along their religion with them.

Also, the British Empire could be viewed as just an extention of the Roman Empire since that is where they learned expansion from.

As for your examples of ancient history, do you really want to go there? The religion of ancient Egypt survives today in the Abrahamic religions. Much of it was picked up by their Jewish slaves and incorporated so I'm not sure what your point is.

 

[Storm]

Well, let me put it another way. Religion is not spread by the sword, it is spread by the winner. You're correct that the Romans did not take up the sword with the intention of spreading Christianity, nor did the Turks to spread Islam. But that doesn't change the fact that they were expansionist who conquored most of the world and brought along their religion with them.

Also, the British Empire could be viewed as just an extention of the Roman Empire since that is where they learned expansion from.

As for your examples of ancient history, do you really want to go there? The religion of ancient Egypt survives today in the Abrahamic religions. Much of it was picked up by their Jewish slaves and incorporated so I'm not sure what your point is.

Thanks for making my point better than I did!