“Christianity didn’t teach world domination via the sword and other means either before or after its Reformation.”
Christians forcibly imposing their faith on others arguably started when Constantine converted to Christianity in the 4th century. How do you think pre-Christian Europe, which had a multiplicity of native polytheistic religions, eventually came under single a faith that originated in the Middle East?
It’s hard to say; there are over 100 references in the Quran to killing the Infidel. But, there was a time when Christians slew the unbeliever who refused to convert.
Given this history — and that Christendom has since developed a means to live in peace with non-believers, there may be some possibility within Islam as well.
The sheer numbers of Muslims makes me more than skeptical of wiping out Islam by persuasion or otherwise as you seem to imply.
Indeed, the process of reforming Islam from within my prove to be beneficial for all concerned — if it is possible.
But they found no justification for that in the words of Jesus Christ.
islam on the contrary DOES find lots of such justification.
Christians forcibly imposing their faith on others arguably started when Constantine converted to Christianity in the 4th century. How do you think pre-Christian Europe, which had a multiplicity of native polytheistic religions, eventually came under single a faith that originated in the Middle East? -- I would suggest a few books on this historical period, but the reason for Christianity spreading in pre-Christian europe, was, from a secular point of view - because Christianity had a better "selling point" compared to pagan religions. It did have competition from the Isis cult and from the MAzda cult -- i'll come to those later
Christianity really spread like wildfire after the destruction of Jerusalem in 69 AD when this new faith broke out of being a Jewish sect and spread to Gentiles
what did Roman religion offer in comparison? Not much -- the gods were distant and mostly evil -- you placated them. The afterlife was filled with Shades and not appealing at all. Also, the gods were localised or all-too human kings
This was not Hinduism with its deep philosophy.
Mazdaism was restricted to men and very esoteric so failed
At the time Constantine converted to Christianity, 315 AD about 25% to 30% of the empire were already Christian -- ironically due to Decian's persecution which made people think "hmm... what could be so fascinating about this philosophy that people are willing to die such horrible deaths for it instead of recanting?"
By the time Theodosius II made it the state religion in c 390 AD, it was already the majority religion
It did not get forced until the Charlemagne wars against the Saxons
for others, christianity brought civilisation.
Note, I live in Poland and Polish history starts from its Christianisation that brought writing, culture etc.
I might be entirely off base about this but I have always thought that that was due to Christians turning ever more to Christ's example of how to live.
That brings us back to the muslim's fundamental problem. Muhammad.
No -- there is also a difference -- the Bible was written by human authors under God's guidance, that is what Christians believe.
Moslems believe that the Koran is the literal word of Allah spoken and noted exactly by Mo -- there can be no rejecting or interpreting parts of it
“How do you think pre-Christian Europe, which had a multiplicity of native polytheistic religions, eventually came under single a faith that originated in the Middle East?”
Much of Christian conversion was peaceful, but the unification of Europe was done by force, under various kings, over a long period of time. It is actually rather complicated.
Christianity is simply superior to the pagan belief systems.
Ireland was converted to Christianity by a single man, it appears.
If you read “The Conquest of Mexico” by Bernal Diaz del Castillo, the only first person account, you find that conversion of the Aztecs and others had to be voluntary. No forced conversion was allowed.
That did not mean that the Spaniards did not conquer; it meant that they did not force Christianity on the natives.
At the same time, they did force the natives to give up human sacrifice and cannibalism.
When the British conquered India, they did not force conversion of the population to Chrisianity.
Rome fell apart only two centuries after Constatine converted to Chrisianity.
So the conversion of Europe was a long and complicated process. Much of it was peaceful, and there was considerable forced conversion under Christian kings as well.
Here is a site that summarizes it rather well.
It’s a really poor starting point for discussion when the author conflates choices by political and military leaders with religious theology and teaching.
Therein lies the difference. You don't find calls in New Testament scripture for "killing the Infidel", and that's a huge difference between Christianity and Islam, both historically and scripturally.
In addition to reasonably arguing self-defense, for example, for Christians to spread their religion by the sword, they had to perform extreme philosophical somersaults and rationalizations
Why? Because such actions simply have never been justifiable on the basis of any New Testament scripture.
This, IMHO, is probably what will doom Islam to be obliterated as a world religion, because the "re-interpretation" of Islamic scripture necessary to bring it into conformity (or at least marginal compatibility) with the civilized world is highly problematic.
In that sense, the Koran is much more like the Old Testament (albeit significantly more savage, IMHO), and I'll just leave it at that...
That's a very, very vague and unquantified assertion about Christians. How about some specific detail? Was it four Christians after a night of drinking, or was it vast armies with ostensible theological and legal supports?