Alternative History
Register
Advertisement

Great Concept[]

Hi Mr. Sheen, your althistory looks like a good one. I am not sure why you call it "Naught Earth," but the concept of a world in which East does not meet West is intriguing. If you get time, it would be great to see a basic map of what the world of "today" (2762 AUC?).

The premise that "everything except" Rome and China stayed the same is a little confusing. We have to assume that inventions were persued in different contexts, for instance. China, with its early development of gunpowder, kites, and movable type, might have persued their use to great advantage unhindered by European interference.

In Europe, though, without the rise of the Enlightenment (for nothing was ever lost in the fall of Rome), the same technologies may never have arisen. However, the science of ancient Rome (borrowed from Greece and Egypt), may have developed into something of what we have today in "the West."

Can we assume, then, that Roman and Muslim scientists would have persued knowledge of the universe on schedule at the same time that China advances with their old discoveries as well? SouthWriter 20:39, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Hi SouthWriter. I called my history Naught Earth (which I just realized I've misspelled, thanks) because it diverts from our universe in the Year Naught (0 BC). I've created a basic map, with only the major countries shown, so I'll try to upload that soon.
And yes, I realize that Rome and China being technologically stunted from 0 BC onwards is a totally irrational, ridiculous scenario; but it seemed like the best way to create the kind of universe I wanted - where Europe never advanced as far as it did. Stunting Rome at around this time (0 BC) was one way of doing this. But then I thought about what that would mean for the rest of the world, and I realized that China's power would have become much greater than I wanted for this universe; so I decided to simply hinder China as well.
But yes, you do have a point. Rome and China have to keep their Science advancing, but I suppose they can just make minor discoveries, or discoveries which wouldn't affect the rest of this universe. Thanks for the advice! - Mister Sheen 22:19, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Religion[]

At the risk of being redundant - what makes "local religions" so sacrosanct? Christianity flourished in the Roman Empire even before it fell. In fact, the "legalization" of it by the Roman government in the fourth century contributed to it's demise as a vibrant religion for over a thousand years. It took the Protestant Reformation to actually fulfill the "great commission" of Matthew 28. In this time line, with a "less technologically advanced" Roman Empire, there is no reason to squelch the rise of Christianity.

In fact, there is no reason to advance Judaism beyond its practical demise in AD 70 (OTL). The fall of Jerusalem happened just as Jesus said it did. If it had not, then Jesus would have been proven a false prophet. I know it is your project, but for the sake of accuracy, the sack of Jerusalem, and the fall from grace of Judaism would certainly have happened just as they did in OTL.

I know that the desire to spread Christianity was one of the factors that drove exploration, but it was a secondary purpose for most explorers. It would be a beautiful thing to see how the spread of Christianity might have done if it had spread north from India (where Thomas had brought the gospel) and through China and into North America via trade across the straight and/or along the shore through island-hopping traders. Meanwhile, it could become a dominant religion in the Roman empire as well, since the Romans mostly just assimilated religions anyway. Without the the spread of Islam into Turkey, the Empire would not have split. The Greek society that had held on and caused theological division would not have taken hold ecclesiastically either.

The Indian style of Christianity would have lacked the syncretism of the Roman, but undoubtedly would have a far eastern synthesis of its own. This new "Eastern" Christianity could slowly, over the course of what was the "dark ages" in the Roman Empire, become a dominant religion in the Americas, perhaps even preventing some of the bloodshed as the tribes began to embrace the doctrines of the true God lost so long ago.

In Africa, the Ethiopian church, different in many ways from the Eastern or Western church, could spread into the interior. Peaceful coexistence might flourish south of the Sahara. Meanwhile, Islam would flounder, showing itself to be a violent religion not suitable for peaceful coexistence among peoples. As you show in the map, its influence would mostly be in the Arabian Peninsular and offshore islands.--SouthWriter 19:55, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

I'm certainly no expert, and this might well be wrong, but I thought Christianity only began to get truly widespread after a Roman Emperor converted, to appease the growing Christian population of Rome. Considering that doesn't happen in this timeline, Christianity would never become Rome's official religion; and would never surpass the older religions in popularity - but it would still grow quickly, as it did in OTL. And as Religious Tolerance becomes much more civilized in Rome (following the Northern rebellion, Rome wants to appease it's revolutionary citizens, so it permits many of their customs), Christians would stop being "fed to the lions" and would be allowed to practice their religion in peace. This would provide the opportunity for Christian pilgrims and missionaries to spread their faith across the Roman Empire (and maybe into Arabia, where freedom of Religion also exists), but I doubt that they would be as successful as they were in OTL without the help of a Christian Roman Emperor.
My thinking behind Judaism was that, following the migrations of Jews around the Roman Empire, they would set up Jewish communities and Synagogues everywhere from Morocco to Latvia (though the Jews would be less Missionary-like than the Christians), and would possibly result in Judaism becoming much more prominent than it was at this time in OTL.
There may be a small Christian community in India, but even the Muslims (who set up a lasting trade with India, unlike the Romans) only make up a tiny portion of India's population, and due to the events of this timeline, Christianity wouldn't surpass Islam in popularity in India, so Indian Christians would probably not exist (at least in significant numbers) in Naught Earth. And I'm sorry, but the only connection that the Americas have with the rest of the world is through the Aleuts in Alaska-Siberia; and through the Norse in Newfoundland - neither of these groups are Christian, so Christianity in the Americas seems impossible. Also, I doubt that it would result in peace for the tribes - looking at the history of the Americas, the wars got a whole lot worse after Christianity arrived!
As for Islam (which I'm sorry, but I resent it being called "a violent religion not suitable for peaceful coexistence among peoples"), the Ummah Caliphate provides an interesting situation, in that it was founded specifically to house all of the world's Muslims. Therefore, Muslim immigration outside of that area will be incredibly limited. There is obviously some to the Arabic colonies (though they are, of course, also a part of the Ummah); as well as a little to India, but that's about it. Muslims don't focus on spreading out in this universe. - Mister Sheen 20:43, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

First, to cover that last point. I misread your assertion about the intolerance of Rome for Islam. Now that you have explained the isolationism of Islam, I retract that generalization. However, your generalization of wars following Christianity is just as offensive to the true nature of that religion.

As far as Muslims being more abundant in India, that only came into the seventh and eight centuries AD. Christianity had had a six century headstart! If the TTL is such that expansionism is much less prevelant, and Islam is mostly a localized religion, then their would not be too much reason to assume the Muslim religion would prevail in India. The Hinduism there, though, may be more resistant to change, keeping Christianity in TTL from advancing just as it did in OTL.

I only presented the migration of Indian missionaries north as a possible alternative to the spread of Christianity to the Americas. In a world that is so far stunted as the Naught Earth, a simple, and slower, spread would certainly be in order. What you are after here is a world where the regional powers became strong without foreign (trans-continental) conquests. The spread of Christianity is not a conquest for earthly territory, so it's spread need not logically interfere with those cultures. It worked that way in OTL, but that does not mean it would have to do so in TTL. That is up to the creator of the TL, not the logical consequences of the premise. SouthWriter 21:54, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for the Christianity-War remark, and I didn't mean to imply that Christianity is a violent faith; only that the Europeans (who happened to be Christian) who arrived in the Americas weren't entirely a bunch of wholesome, friendly people who brought peace to the tribes. And anyway, the fact that they did such damage to the natives wasn't BECAUSE they were Christians, it was because they were Imperialists. I doubt that Jewish, Muslim or Hindu empires would have handled things differently.
And just to clarify, Muslims aren't abundant in Naught India, there is only a very small community in the South. After Arabia developed it's seafaring abilities, Arab explorers set out across the Indian Ocean, and colonized much of it. They also reached India, which they didn't colonize, but they did establish trade. Trade almost always brings immigrants, hence the tiny Muslim population in India. And I know very little about the early days of Christianity in India, but if it was there before Naught Earth veers away from OTL, then it should logically be there in this timeline, so I'll do my best to work out exactly where Christianity should fit into India here.
And while it's true that the spread of Christianity isn't a foreign conquest, I see no reason to push for Christianity to go global in Naught Earth unless a simple, realistic way for that to happen presents itself (rather than a Christianization of India, followed by China, and then a Chinese discovery of the Americas (and anyway, I don't particularly buy all that "Zheng He and the Chinese discovered everything" story)).
I admit, I am biased. I am committed to the service of Jesus, the Messiah (Christ). Therefore, in an ATL which does not diverge in such a way to eliminate and/or postpone the reality of Christ and His church, I see no reason why His followers should not seek ways to propogate the faith in whatever direction they can. They have their "marching orders" - to reach the furhest tribes with the gospel. In OTL that was facilitated on the heels of conquest at times. However, the church has grown strongest, and larger, under persecution than through patronage of the monarch or emporer. Why would it be strange if ancient China should see millions come to Christ even under persecution? That is the case in the twentieth century.
If you re-read my scenario, I did not say that any society was Christianized, only that the religion spread in the natural migration of peoples over a period of a thousand years. Since conversion is not something anyone can do to another, but rather a matter of the heart, Christianitiy would spread by word of mouth along with the Christians. Those who hear, and believe would naturally pass it on. You yourself mentioned that the peoples of Siberia and North America interact with one another. It is primarily that path that Christianity would spread into the Americas. The spread of Christianity will always be met with resistance, but it triumphs because it is backed by the one true God. And when the Almighty God wants to get something done, He gets it done!
As I pointed out earlier, it was not the support of the church by the Roman government that spread Christianity. If you look at the lands where that kind of forced religion prevailed, you will find a religion very foreign to that which Constantine first converted to. And appeasement to a growing church in Rome was not the reason he converted. If his conversion was insincere (and good men have argued that it was just that), it was not to appease anyone. It was formost to gain an advantage on the battlefield. But back to the religion of the subjugated peoples -- that religion, in most places, is even far removed from the religion of the subugaters. The common people make their own religion as they go. That is the nature of the unconverted.
This is your project, and all I have done is present a twist that would make it more interesting and truer to the nature of the religion that you have made to be a footnote in history. The scenario I presented is not an easy one to unfold, but I think it would be a challenge just the same.SouthWriter 01:57, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
I agree, it would be very interesting to see how Christianity plays out if it reached areas indirectly (eg. I assume that by passing through India, China and Siberia, and then on to the Americas; Christianity would become fairly "regionalized", with very different Churches of Christianity appearing in different places). However, even in Our Timeline, where about 1/3 of the population of the Earth are Christians; most of Eastern Siberia (and parts of Northwest Alaska) remains predominantly "tribal" in terms of Religion. Therefore in this Timeline, where the lack of Technology (and also the fact that Christianity is a less common faith than it is in OTL) means that Christianity finds it harder to spread, I doubt that it would realistically arrive in these areas.
Outside of America, though, it is certainly possible for Christianity to become more common than I have it at the moment; but my main goal with this Timeline is to create a world where different societies hardly influence eachother - where they don't influence eachother at all, in some cases. And also, wherever societies DO have to influence eachother, I try to make them different influences than they were in OTL (for example, the Arabic influence in Madagascar will probably eventually lead to Islamic expeditions to South Africa, where they will meet the Zulu. You can't deny that having Zulu spearmen face off against Arabian Saracens is going to be pretty spectacular!).
Sorry if I haven't made much sense here. I'm a bit sleep-deprived at the moment, and most of these sentences have been really long, so I suppose I've probably made dozens of grammar errors, and it will be impossible to read. Sorry! - Mister Sheen 16:38, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
You are working on a false premise on two fronts - first, you are assuming that the adoption of Christianity as the "state religion" of Rome was necessary for the expansion of Christianity. As I stated before, that was not the case. Then, as now, the church expands best when under persecution. It is only when things are tough that most people pay much attention to the claims of Christ any way. Secondly, though technology has helped spread the Word of God, and by that the Church (the hearing of the word is a necessary prerequisite according to Romans 10:14), the spreading of the gospel is not merely the work of man. There are far too many "educated" unbelievers out there -- ones who, like the Jewish leaders in Jesus' day know the Bible from front to back -- to belie the claim that it is up to man.
Not meaning to offend, but if you have not checked out the claims of Christ, and the teachings of the New Testament to who Christ was and what he did, then writing a timeline that even includes it will prove defective on that point. We all have our biases -- and our "world views" - and alternate histories will show them just like any other kind of literature. But we can work past these biases if we put ourselves in the shoes of the characters within our histories. Think of yourself as a believer in an age without state churches to form boundaries and prejudices. Think of those who are called by God, and how God might get his message to them so that they might believe.
Your reasoning as to why the gospel would not reach into America is somewhat circular as well, for you mention tribal groups that have either not heard the gospel, or have rejected it, in our time, and in our time line. And then you mention a lack of technology in modern times as the reason they would not hear in TTL. I am suggesting that the missionary zeal of the early church - before Constantine - would not have been squelched for over a thousand years. There would not have been as much syncretism to distort the original message. This would have lead to a slow spread through ordinary contact of ordinary citizens and traders between peoples. A thousand years is a long time!

While I'm sure that TRUE believers of Christianity increase more during persecution; insincere conversions to a religion (mostly because of fear or intimidation) are more frequent when that religion is in power. You cannot deny that Ancient Rome was a very intolerant place: Christians were persecuted under state Polytheism; and Polytheists were persecuted under state Christianity. Without a Christian Rome, it is impossible for Christianity to spread in the same places, in the same way, as it did in OTL. Though it is still possible for it to spread to these areas in TTL, it would be much slower, and of a much lesser magnitude.

And yes, you're right, Christians would still seek to spread their faith. Unlike several earlier faiths, Christianity teaches that believers should spread the word of God; and that would definitely happen in TTL. But other than your own belief that the spreading of Christianity should succeed, is there a good reason that the Naught Earth Missionaries should be as successful as they were in OTL? Given the extra time that countries such as China and India have to establish themselves as nations - with their own devoutly religious citizens (who may possibly decide to spread West with the word of their God) - does it really seem likely that Christian missionaries, can have the colossal effect which you suggest on these countries' vast populations? If I am to put myself into a pair of Devout Christian shoes; can I ask you to put yourself into a pair of Devoutly Hindu ones? Imagine you live in India in about 1000 AD, in the Naught Earth. You believe strongly in the Hindu faith, and are disdainful of the Buddhists and Muslims in your country, but are willing to ignore them. One day, a group of Westerners arrive, and begin preaching about their God, and how he is willing to forgive your evilness if you will worship him (I know that's not exactly Christianity's message, but that's what it sounds like to this guy). Surely you're pretty angry that they have the nerve to come into your Country and preach about how they know better than you; and you should do what they say?

Finally, I apologize again for the Americas comments. That's where my sleep-deprivation really kicked in. I meant that the Siberian tribes have not even been Christianized in OTL, where Christianity is so vast, and our transportation and communications are so advanced. In Naught Earth, where neither Communications nor Transportation have ever advanced past horse-riding, it seems unlikely that Christian Missionaries do better at converting the Siberians than in OTL. And I maintain that, no matter how zealous the Missionaries are; if Christianity is passing from town-to-town gradually; it will become regionally distorted. Just look at Britain: in its early Christian days, there was chaos over whether British Christians would follow the Irish or European calendar; as each celebrated Easter at a different time. That's just between Ireland and Europe, and there was enough difference to cause problems. Imagine the differences between European, Chinese and Lakota Christians! - Mister Sheen 23:21, April 10, 2010 (UTC)


I am not insisting that the spread would be in the same places, and in the same way. However, I am saying that since God has said he will indeed give to Christ all those that are truely His, they would be reached. In Naught Earth, there would not be the Roman bureaucracy that slowed down the spread of true Christians and perpetuated the growth of nominal Christianity that does not hold up to persecution. The spread of true Christianity would be slower, but just as many TRUE Christians would be reached in that slower rise of the religion.
I am not suggesting that the spread of Christianity would necessarily change societies around the world. The "good reason" that I believe that Christianity, or rather the "church" (="assembly") made up of believers in Jesus as the promised Messiah (Christ, God's annointed one) is the work of the Creator of the Universe. The true God does not need modern technology to reach those He wants to reach! [I am defining terms just in case you are unfamiliar with the jargon. You seem to understand the nature of Christianity pretty well, but I'd rather be understood than not.] In a simplified world as you envision, the likelihood of the spread of the gospel by way of word of mouth could continue to grow like it did in ancient Rome -- a very unlikely growth due to the almost total ignorance of Biblical history that the Gentiles (= "non-Jews"). The "far" eastern minds would in fact have understood much better than the "western" (Greco-Roman) minds. Judaism and Christianity are "eastern" in nature. The mindset of the Chinese today probably adds a lot to the phenomenal growth there now. That growth, in fact, has come SINCE persecution returned with Communism in 1949.
My understanding of the development of China was that it was not particularly affected by the west apart from traders anyway. In fact, it was they that decided to isolate themselves when they actually had the opportunity to interact. In India, the influence of the "west" came far before the first century AD when the Arians came down from the north to totally disrupt what had begun there with the ancient religions. The next interference was not until modern times -- the age of exploration -- so the evolution of society in India already had a "westernization" before the gospel arrived there (as an "eastern" style Christianity). Though the eastern religions of China and India have their devout -- and even fanatical -- followers, they are not evangelistic by nature. As I pointed out above, their mindset is counter to the Greco-Roman way of thinking, so even if they did evangelize, they would face the same resistance that that Paul and the other apostles met when they brought the new "sect" of the Jewish religion to them. The difference is, the Christians were bringing the message of a living God rather than the contemplations of ancient masters. Ideas do not transform lives the way God does!
Now, the question is whether I can put myself in the shoes of a devout Hindu faced with someone coming to him with a message of hope from a foreign God. Yes indeed, I would feel threatened if I thought that my ways were good and pure but told otherwise. If I was of a sectarian mind to hate, or at least distrust Buddhists, much less Muslims, I would certainly not appreciate yet another religion coming to town. If a preacher came in calling me a sinner, when I "know" I am "not that bad," and that I must "do" things in order to satisfy the wrath of God, then I would turn a deaf ear. As well I should! For that is not the Gospel. Besides, the scenario that you mention is exactly what happens today, but it has not stopped Christians from going into India and working among them.
Missionaries like Hudson Taylor, who worked for years in China, learned that you do not "force" people to change their ways to "become a Christian." It works the other way around. The gospel is preached, some hear and believe and others hear and reject it. When someone believes, it is then that they change their ways. But not necessarily their customs. They will still eat the same foods, and wear the same clothes. They will still speak the same language and have to deal with the same people (for the most part). As you say, Christians in different parts of the world would develop different types of ceremonies and perhaps even different theologies. I have admitted such earlier. Since communication would be limited, the "look" of the assemblies would not be near as regular as it is in TTL as in OTL. But outward form is not what marks the true church anyway. Assemblies everywhere would still pray to God, they would still baptize converts and observe communion (aka eucharist). Believers would come together for fellowship and to learn more about God, and they would show charity (love) to their neighbors. I really don't have to imagine the differences between European, Chinese and Lakota Christians. All I have to do is ask a missionary.
I hope you have had a better night's sleep before reading this reply. But then, if you had not had such, you probably would not have read this far, huh? Well, I hope I have made myself clear -- Christianity is not the work of men, but of God. Therefore, the methods used to spread it do not depend on the modern inventions of men. Missionaries have faced hostility from the very beginning, and they reached the furthest ends of the earth (the south Pacific islands) before the invention of electric lights, telephones, and motion pictures. SouthWriter 03:56, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
To be fair, the beginning of India's interaction with the West was, as far as I know, Alexander the Great's conquest in the 4th Century BC. And yes, I am willing to concede that Christianity would indeed spread as far as it was able (I mean with small Missionary communities, like the Jesuits in Asia during the Colonial Age; not by converting entire countries), but I'm afraid that this would be limited to Europe and Asia (and into parts of Africa); and I will change the Timeline to show Christianity's spread.
The fact that Christianity is "the word of the true God" is your belief, which you are completely entitled to. However, from my point of view, each Religion has an equal chance of being right or wrong. I'm not going to play favourites here, so in TTL, each religion's spread will be limited by how far its Missionaries can get, etc. Not by which religion is the true Word of God.
And therefore I maintain that Christianity cannot reach America (unless, perhaps, some of the Northern Federation convert, and bring the religion to Newfoundland). As for the Pacific, while they may not have had Electric Lights, Telephones, or Motion Pictures; they did have Galleons, Caravels and Ships-of-the-Line. Roman Triremes aren't going to make it across the Pacific.
The only way Christianity could reach the Pacific would be on Native Outriggers (which is a pretty tenuous idea). And considering Yap would probably be their first destination (Yap had contact with Indonesia, so presumably someone would know the way), where the first Christian Mission was destroyed by Natives within a year, and all the Missionaries killed, I think Conversion of the Pacific might not be very successful.
Anyway, most Pacific Natives were converted because they believed Christianity would bring them the "White Man's technology". If the White Man has to be ferried around by Pacific People because he can't build his own ship, the Pacific People are going to be VERY unimpressed (ship-building is like second-nature to them. Anyone who can't build a ship would be considered Technologically backwards).


Actually, I said that Christianity is the WORK of God, accomplished through the agency of his written word, read or recited (if the missionaries had no physical copy of the word). I faile to mention the actual presence of God (His Spirit) in doing this work. However, as you say, your point of view is that the spread of religion is only by human agency by ordinary means. It is your time line, and you see no supernatural reality behind the spiritual belief systems of any of these peoples, so my points remain only suggestions from real life as to what has happened without the need of "technology" that arose following the fifteenth century AD.

I had thought of the Northern Federation connection to get into North America, but I was more enamored with the possibilites of what could have been in a completely foreign time line such as this. You have weighted it to be a totally man-centered world, and I was not sure how free you would have had the movement of Christians in the Roman Empire (or on what time-scale).

I understand your point about letting the strong among the native peoples prevail to the extent that they might with technology stuck at the beginning of the "Current Era." However, the period up to the great advances following the "dark ages" is left out. The "dark ages" did not happen in TTL -- Rome did not fall, and civilization continued on its own merry way. A planet-wide malaise kept mankind in its adolescence, allowing for "bullies" to take what they wanted, and peaceful existence by those who apparently had nothing that the bullies wanted any way. In such a world, religion is just another tool to be used -- like apparently it is in OTL -- by the strong over the weak to the best advantage. I find that rather demeaning to all religions, but especially to Christianity.

I challenge you to read the New Testament book of Romans. It is a letter written to mostly non-Jewish believers in Rome in the 50's of the first century AD. Have the Old Testament handy (pretty easy if you have a Bible) because Paul builds his argument based on references and allusions to the long history of God working among the Jews. Hopefully you can get ahold of at least a cross-referenced Bible, if not a "study Bible" with footnotes. I recommend that you disregard the notes for now, using only the cross references for commentary. The apostle had us pretty well pegged -- we need help! Anyway, get a translation in contemporary English and read the letter for yourself. Better men than I have been intrigued by the arguments this first century Jew presents in those 16 chapters (15 pages in one version I have). I in turn, will read any 15 pages of history or philosophy you have to support your contention that religion is a "footnote" to history. SouthWriter 20:55, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Again, yes, Christianity did spread without the need of the technology which never becomes available in TTL; but I think I've already said that I agree with you there, and tried to ammend my Timeline to incorporate Christian missions which could (and probably would) have happened in Naught Earth. But I don't think it can be argued that Christianity could possibly succeed as much in TTL as it did in OTL. I just can't see that happening.
And I also agree that it would be phenominally interesting to watch Christianity reach the Americas (and beyond) by gradually spreading from settlement to settlement; rather than quickly spreading under the reins of European conquest. In fact, I like that idea so much that I would consider starting a new Timeline based solely around such a spread. But again, it doesn't seem likely that this would happen in Naught Earth, so I won't be including it in this particular timeline. (Coincedentally, I don't suppose you'd be interested in writing such a Timeline? You seem to be quite an expert!)
But the comment about religion just being a tool to control the poor - I don't believe that at all. There is no religion (that I'm aware of) which has ever preached that kind of thing. But you can't deny, many people throughout history have used religions in just such a way. And I'm not going to try to whitewash over that. The Inca will still force the Moche to worship Viracocha; the Fundamentalist Hindus will still treat the Buddhists like lesser beings; and the Jews and Christians will still always face some sort of prejudice from the Roman devout. Of course, I won't be whitewashing over all the good which religion has done, either. Muslims will still be very charitable; Christians will still aspire to the Good Samaritan; and the Cheyenne will still respect their natural environment.
I will try to read Romans, but I'm just coming to the end of a whole lot of free time; so it might be a while before I get around to it. But lastly, I don't think in any way that Religion is a mere add-on to Humanity. It is a defining part of our species; and it certainly isn't just a footnote to history. Religion has played a part (even if only in a small way) in almost every major event in human history. The fact that I included it even in the very first draft of Naught Earth shows that I'm trying to make it important to TTL, as well, it's just that Religions *there* will look a lot different to religions *here*. - Mister Sheen 21:36, April 11, 2010 (UTC)


Though you were of no obligation to consider anything I wrote, I am glad you have decided to give a little more credence to the power of the inner zeal of an evangelistic religion such as Christianity. It is clear that you are not going to follow my argument as to the true power behind the spread of Christianity since the end of the dark ages. One thing I need to point out, I suppose, on your ammended concessions to the spread of Christianity. You fail to give Christianity its full due in north Africa. Without the spread of Muslim armies to wipe them out -- yes, that is how it happened -- Christianity would have become very strong in northern Africa. Roman paganism was not that prominent there, and the ancient Egyptian religions did not spread very far beyond the Nile Valley. The Christian Church was very strong there in OTL, though it had various disagreements in doctrine with the church in Europe. The Africans in OTL seemed to be prone to compromise in order to save their own lives, on the one hand, or another practice that was deemed almost as heretical the volutarily offers of themselves for martyrdom! The period of persecution was shorter, but church trials in peaceful times caused numerous schisms because of these differing approaches to religion.

As for religions "looking different," I am not sure that follows logically. Most of the religions we are dealing with were estabished before the stagnation of technology near the time of Jesus' birth. Christianity would have had its primary documents written and accepted during the original period of persecution. Indeed, the main charge against Christians in Africa was the giving up of sacred books to be destroyed -- meaning there was an accepted canon by then (AD 303). TTL does not change that. If by "looking different," you mean the outward appearance, you are probably right. Without being incorporated into Rome, the cathedrals and other "temple like" structures would not have risen in which to worship. The Pope, if he arose at all, would not have a regal palace styled after the emporer's. Without the council that Costantine called, different types of Christianity would have been adapted in different places -- a schism in the church but not in the Roman Empire.

As for reading Romans, you need not read it all in one sitting. If you read the first three chapters, you will see where Paul lays down the problem. In chapters 4 and 5, he tells of the solution. In six through eleven he explains why Jesus is essensial for God's work among mankind. At the end, Paul gives several chapters (12-16) of practical applications. Three chapters a day (15 minutes tops) and by the end of the week you'll have it read. I read it this week just to refresh my memory as to its contents. SouthWriter 02:51, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

Advertisement