Thread 18139601

The religious landscape in Europe and the Middle East likely looks more like the religious landscape in Southeast and East Asia, with multiple traditions blending and melding together over the centuries as trade and empires come and go. Our fundamental view on what religion even is is different.

The idea that you can only belong to one religion is a very Abrahamic reflex stemming from Jewish law; you can be a Jew, or you can be a non-Jew. Jews weren't allowed to worship non-Jewish gods (the ancient Israelite religion changed a lot over the centuries, this monotheism and exclusivity developed over time; King Solomon worshiped other gods), and this exclusivity was later inherited by Christianity and Islam. For contrast, look at Buddhism in Asia: Buddhism is part of Hindu, SE Asian, Tibetan, Mongolian, Chinese, Korean, and Japanese traditions without any contradictions.

Religious ideas flowed throughout the Roman world, either coming into conflict with the state religion or influencing/supplanting it (Sol Invictus was a local Syrian deity that Aurelian liked). Religions change over time, sometimes quite dramatically, and the Greco-Roman religion would have changed with the times and adapted itself by introducing new gods, downplaying others, or completely re-imagining some; worship of these traditional gods with their ancient temples would probably be done today, but it would look wildly different from how it would have been done in the Roman Empire.

Everyone would be gay and trans by now.

>>18139601 (OP)
A good point of reference would probably be Japan. In various surveys, Japan is 70% Shinto, 70% Buddhist, and 70% non-religious at the same time, because religious affiliation as a concept is not native to Japan. It's often remarked that Japanese people are "Born Shinto, marry Christian, and die Buddhist" because various beliefs and rituals get merged together so often. Shinto itself is also a broad umbrella term for all traditional Japanese beliefs, but local shrines/temples aren't seen as competing with one another or out to make the other "not Shinto". This is also, from my understanding, similar to Hinduism and how Hinduism intersects with other beliefs like Buddhism in India (save for Islam, which both Hindus and Muslims see as mutually exclusive) or Chinese and Korean folk religions with Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism.

So there is likely a state-imposed religious view for the rest of Roman history until the empire's collapse. From there post-Roman states and the ERE continue to evolve with a shared religious heritage mixing with local traditions, their neighbors, and whatever locals come up with. The Eastern Roman Empire would be staunchly anti-Zoroastrian out of pure "We Hate Persia" attitudes, and if Buddhism spreads from the East into Iran then it might see its way into Anatolia and the Levant. Roman gods continue to be worshiped throughout the former Empire, but Jupiter in Britain likely ends up looking different than Jupiter in Syria. Various pagan traditions remain, sometimes on a super local level (i.e. this one town venerates this one god by doing this one thing, their neighbors down the river have no idea what they're talking about), and most people don't really see inherent contradictions in this. The idea of identifying as one and only one religion outside of being a priest is weird, and actively refuting the existence of all gods but your own is downright bizarre.

>>18139604
We'd likely have less of a clear line between religion, superstition, and cultural quirks. Loads of people in otherwise Christian societies knock on wood, avoid the number 13, and recognize totems/amulets like 4-leaf clovers and horseshoes despite none of that having any Biblical support (or sometimes being explicitly sinful, as the Bible and Quran all forbid magic). These sorts of superstitious beliefs likely see some elevation into being sort of religious since, without Christianity and Islam, there is no singular text to point to on "How to do this religion".

Not having central texts would also be pretty huge. We'd still have collections of myths and legends, we'd have stories about the gods and spirits, but there wouldn't be a set canon to follow or texts to interpret. Influential works will still emerge of course, but this lack of canon texts would create more variation over larger spaces.

Most other religions also don't place such a huge emphasis on belief, instead on actions. Attending festivals, offering sacrifices, going to temples, and any other religious practice is likely far more important than your personal belief in whether or not the myths are "true". This is why there are so many conflicting, "contradictory" surveys in Japan; people go to shrines and festivals, they hire priests when constructing new buildings, they do certain rituals in their lives while at the same time perhaps thinking that kami don't exist. Religion is, in many ways, a set of community rules where religious practice helps bind communities together and reinforce shared values/identity.

>>18139747
I definitely don't want to imply that everyone has a "Live and let live" approach to other religions, Christianity and Islam didn't invent religious warfare by any stretch of the imagination. Gods, temples, and sacred sites would be seen as part of a community for good and for bad, and would be targeted by "Othering" as much as anything else; Romans sacrificing goats to Jupiter thought of everyone else as barbaric and in need of "civilizing". Pagans destroyed foreign pagan idols all the time, often to symbolically demonstrate control over a region/people.

Also I avoided anything regarding secular politics, like states/borders/wars, because removing Christianity and Islam are such huge butterflies that you could make up whatever you wanted DESU. Like removing Christianity from history fundamentally changes the entire political landscape of Europe from 312 onward as that's when Constantine converted, and who knows what decisions he or his successors made explicitly because of their Christian faith and what decisions were made by/influenced various Church officials.

>>18139601 (OP)
Unfortunately the emergence of violent, expansionist monotheistic faiths from the Middle East was inevitable. The geography of the region ensures that any faith which becomes dominant there will spread easily into Europe, Africa and Asia. Violent and exclusionary religions are more evolutionary fit than peaceful ones (“live and let live” will always lose when matched up with “convert or die”. Combine these two things and you get the last 2000 years of religious history.

>>18139601 (OP)
I'm pretty sure Sol Invictus was actually a roman deity. A continuation of Sol Indiges, the roman equivalent of Helios. But you're right about the new religions, they came from the east and where very attractive for the roman population. Maniqueism was an influential cult of good and bad already rivalizing with Christianity in the east, Mithras was also a mysterious cult too similar to modern freemasonry. Isis was very popular in the east and some part of the west and could have influenced the myth of the virgin Mary as mother of God.

Overall it seems that the worship of multiple lesser gods was a thing mostly performed by people from the lower classes and the countryside, the word itself pagan refers to these people. Educated roman and greeks, as well scholars view those multiple gods as archetypes that symbolized abstract concepts, you can still see it today with the Muses and the goddess Iustitia in the Courts of Law, or even the modern saints. Most of these educated people and philosophers seem to accept that there was only one force of divine creation and sometimes one force of divine nature.

Christianity and Maniqueism were so attractive because they gave that Divine Force a clear name and order from the chaos of polytheism unleashed to absurd limits, as some ancient writters complain about the proliferation of absurd cults around the empire. In a way, it seems that returning to the proto indoeuropean Sky Father and Mother Earth made more sense in a caotic polytheistic society

>>18139759
>Unfortunately the emergence of violent, expansionist monotheistic faiths from the Middle East was inevitable. The geography of the region ensures that any faith which becomes dominant there will spread easily into Europe, Africa and Asia. Violent and exclusionary religions are more evolutionary fit than peaceful ones (“live and let live” will always lose when matched up with “convert or die”. Combine these two things and you get the last 2000 years of religious history.
Don’t forget that the punishment for not believing in the Abrahamic deity is eternal suffering for trillions upon trillions of years.
The punishment for not believing in Zeus is, well, nothing I think. Christianity and Islam survives largely because of the immense consequences that emerge on the off-chance it is true. Muslims have to be faced with eternal torment to convince them to not eat bacon.

Back to OP’s question though, atheism would never emerge under the Pagan system. The Greeks/Roman religion was barely a religion as we consider them today. It’s actually debated among historians how much the Greeks/Romans actually believed that Zeus was sitting up on Mt. Olympus throwing lightning bolts. The Pantheon was more like the Avengers or Spider-Man than Muhammad to a lot of ancient people. Cool, fictional characters that everyone played along with cuz it was fun to tell stories. And then throw in some cultural practices and you get Hellenistic religion.

The religion really didn’t demand anything absurd like chopping up your cock, so really no reason to “deconvert.”

>>18139751
Pagan model was that once your city gets conqured your god becomes a lesser god in pantheon of gods.
God was a symbol of its poeple.

>>18139830
>The punishment for not believing in Zeus is, well, nothing I think. Christianity and Islam survives largely because of the immense consequences that emerge on the off-chance it is true.
I dont think its specified in the books like that. How could you blame someone for not converting to a religion he knows nothing about. There are tons of sects that claim the same. Probably someone also claimed that unless you give to the temple of zeus you will go to hell forever.
I doubt thats the only reason.
Acording to predictive history religions like that are good for managing empire . Everyone has same god same customs etc.

>>18139904
>Pagan model
there's no such thing
paganism was not a single religion with a single model

>>18139601 (OP)
Roman paganism was already moving towards monotheism by the third century with the advent of the cult of Sol Invictus. Considering this mirrored the development in ancient Egypt surrounding Aten centuries earlier, I believe all polytheists religion will eventually develop into a monotheistic model surrounding a sun god. Or perhaps more accurately, they return to it.
Especially with Jupiter-Zeus it doesnt take much at all. The Romans and Greeks already believe he could overpower all the other gods with little effort and that they all served, or at least respected/feared, him, so its not far fetched to just downgrade them into angles and elevate Jupiter-Zeus as the one true god.
Not only is it religiously logical, its also extremely advantageous for any state institution which is why monotheism was always enforced top down. While egalitarian polytheism mirriors a fractured world of many warring tribes, cities and kingdoms which are more or less equal, a hierarchical, monotheistic model under one true god mirrors the hierarchical consolidation of power under one state institution. By declaring one true god any associating with him either as his representative or incarnation on earth, an emperor or king or priest legitimizes himself as the undisputed ruler of the world as god is of the universe.
So a world without Judaism and Christianity wouldnt look much different. Other than what paganlarpers say, Christianity was heavily influenced by paganism and Europe is strongly shaped by pagan tradition to this day. There would be one god but it would be more like Orthodoxy or pisslam where the state is his representative directly. Thank God we avoided that.
Although the huge bonus is no pisslam and a hellenized east (beyond the gay child rape), so I guess it would have been a better world. But then shitskins would just find another reason to be a bunch of insufferable assholes.

>>18140056
Also I think it was inevitable that an eastern religion would take hold in Europe. Religion relies on a mystical barrier between two kinds of knowledge and two worlds which is bridged through faith. A long association with one religion demystifies it. I am sure many Romans were questioning whether their gods were real. They worshiped them and so did their ancestors, but it never really got them anything, did it? Unlike in the stories the gods never mingled with them and despite doing all the correct rituals correctly their crops would fail, their children die and other cruel misfortunes they were hoping to avoid through faithful service would befall them. And if the empire was the gift of the gods then what good was it for them? The empire impoverished them or just straight out turned them into slaves.
Then suddenly comes a strange preacher telling you about this carpenter from the east who healed the sick, walked on water, exorcised evil spirits, was executed and rose from the dead. Despite this he taught he was a lowly slave before god, just like you. Could it be real? Why was this man speaking of a strange god doing all these things your priests couldnt? Or is it all a lie? Easterlings trying to subvert the empire?
This initial doubt can only be be bridged through faith, which is why new converts are more fervorous than people born into a religion. Christianity in Rome was more authentic and real than paganism, which was entrenched in its gold filled temples and rigid rituals, not much different from what happened during the reformation.
Foreign religions from far away places are generally more appealing to people and its adherents more serious about their faith. If it wasnt Jesus it may just have been Zoroaster.

>>18139920
>I dont think its specified in the books like that.
It is. It’s mostly an unfortunate anachronism because the writers of the Quran and Bible thought the Fertile Crescent basically housed all of humanity. Tarshish (now called Spain) was known as the “End of the World” to Ancient Jews. Which I think is a really fun fact. I have discussions with priests and rabbis and such on occasion, and many of them are shocked by that fact. Anyways, the Bible doesn’t address th Native Australians because they didn’t know Australia existed. Not an issue. All of humanity lives here, so anyone who does not worship our god is knowingly rejecting him.
>How could you blame someone for not converting to a religion he knows nothing about.
This is how most denominations function. There’s no grace for not knowing. If there was, then why would Evangelize be necessary? Let everyone die in ignorance.
>There are tons of sects that claim the same.
Most religions proclaim that the existence of their god is self-evident in nature, which is stupid, but religion is not a logical field.
>Probably someone also claimed that unless you give to the temple of zeus you will go to hell forever.
Do you have a source for that? Because that is not at all my understanding of the Greek afterlife. Your good and bad deeds might matter, but I don’t think there’s a punishment for not believing in Zeus. In Christianity, your good deeds don’t matter because “All have sinned,” so all that matters is affirming the Nicene Creed.

>>18139920
>>18140290
>I doubt thats the only reason.
>Acording to predictive history religions like that are good for managing empire . Everyone has same god same customs etc.
Yeah, no shit. Religions are supposed to be good for maintaining social order. Christianity and Islam have always been fucking terrible at that.
>Genital mutilation
>Persecution complex
>Literally trying to be martyred all the time
>Constantly trying to overthrow the government for [Insert theological disagreement]
>Heresy = Slight disagreement = War
>Study of the natural world = bad (depends on place and period)
You’ll notice that Western society does not function on “Biblical values” at all. Aka, bacon is not illegal and marriage is not frowned upon and life itself is not hated and having children is not considered a wrongdoing against the unborn.

Christianity functioned best under Roman Catholicism where it was a vague, “just bee a good person” religion where the average person was forbidden from even reading the Bible. Everything before and after has been terrible.

>>18140056
>monotheism by the third century with the advent of the cult of Sol Invictus
He is partners with Mithras so its definitely deism. They also go by Malakbel and Aglibol, and many other pairs like them.

>>18139601 (OP)
White Japan

>>18140298
>Christianity and Islam have always been fucking terrible at that.
Not really. No other religions managed to create perfect NPCs. Also Kings lineage rule is determined by god is way stronger than gods favor him for now.
They were good at controlling pesant slaves. Islam more so. Priests and Nobility were always hard to controll.
Egyptian priests helped bring alexander to power for example

>>18140400
Sorry I meant ditheism, but not good/bad ditheism just a partnership of two good entities.

>>18139601 (OP)
>what if Christianity had never existed?
The light of the world would have been destroyed an age ago, like how they're being destroyed today.

>>18139604
>Japan
Japan has historically had high rates of depression.

>>18141433
Christianity was an absolute nightmare for social order prior to the structure of the Roman Church. There’s tales of Christians gathering en masse and begging to be martyred. They were nuisances. After Protestantism exploded, Christianity once again became a nightmare thanks to every fat Billy Bob in Tennessee “reinterpreting” the Bible.

Islam struggled with infighting and disunity the moment the prophet died. They’ve had short periods of peace, but that’s it.