Actually, Huston Smith and I agree in many areas. I, too, believe that religion has been a powerful force for good in the world.
He still believes, in a way, although it's interesting to read his words and try to figure out what it is, exactly, that he believes. I'm not certain he knows, himself, but I'd like a chance to talk to him for a couple of hours, now that I'm no longer 20 years old like I was the last time I spoke to him.
He presents a real dilemma for the traditional Christian. He seems to be a poly-religionist, believing in religion, but not necessarily in a particular one.
I understand that, and was in basically that position for a number of years, flirting with several different religious systems. Unlike him, however, I finally accepted the concept that, while religion is a very important part of our social construct, all religions are essentially the same. Just the names have been changed, to protect the unwary, if you will.
Christianity is a well-evolved religion, which simplifies the process of dealing with the entire post-death business about as far as is possible.
Rather like the English language, which has evolved to eliminate things like gender, case, and most tenses, Christianity has evolved to eliminate long, tedious lists of rituals and complex societal rules. Both have simplified their respective constructs to the point that one needn't concern oneself with complexity.
English is evolving today, moving toward eliminated agreement in number between noun and verb. Christianity, however, doesn't seem to be able to simplify itself further. Indeed, it has grown more and more fragmented.
Still, there is an enormous appeal to a religion that deals with the after-death question so simply. By having a symbolic entity which died to expiate all the sins of mankind, simple belief is all that's needed to avoid the ever-present eternal punishment business, all that bother of multiple reincarnations, and the like. Believe and you're done, essentially. In that, it's an amazing construct. It didn't do so well in Israel at its creation, but it was a big hit in Rome and Greece, where the panoply of deities was getting tedious.
It seemed to catch on in Europe, where it must have been wonderful to give up on the impossible task of satisfying all those demanding Norse and Germanic deities. You could accept the Christian construct, then go on about your business. What a boon! Indeed, the liberation from the tedium of a polytheistic religion may well have enabled the explosion of scientific and artistic growth in Europe, leading the West into a dominant position in the world.
Just my musings...others may have differing ideas.
Christianity is a well-evolved religion, which simplifies the process of dealing with the entire post-death business about as far as is possible.
Rather like the English language, which has evolved to eliminate things like gender, case, and most tenses, Christianity has evolved to eliminate long, tedious lists of rituals and complex societal rules. Both have simplified their respective constructs to the point that one needn't concern oneself with complexity. >>>>>
Well I come from a long line of Quakers.
(No I wouldnt consider myself one at present)
Christianity to them was finding an inner light and letting it shine forth.
Very pure and ahead of its time.
Roman society at the time of the emergence of Christianity was actually suffering from a widespread religious vacuum. During the reign of Augustus, which wrapped around the beginning of our era, the Emperor tried desperately to revive traditional Roman religion, much of which had been forgotten or was essentially ignored by his contemporaries. His attempts succeeded largely in politicizing religion - Romans of a century earlier were happy to worship Jove because they revered him; Romans of the first century A.D. were happy to worship Augustus because it scored political points.
Christianity burst into this spiritual vacuum the way that Islam is doing in modern-day Europe. Other cults (such as that of Isis, Cybele, Mithras, etc.) did so as well; over the course of the next four centuries, Christianity defeated all rivals and attained near-monopoly on Roman religious practice.
It is therefore inaccurate to say that the Romans adopted Christianity because their complex religious traditions had grown "tedious" or because they were burdensome. It's more accurate to say that they adopted Christianity because they no longer found their traditional practices meaningful, and had drifted into agnosticism.