The Roman elite held onto the Pantheion of Gods long after Christianity had spread throughout the more destitute classes. Imagine how different Christianity would look if Jesus were born rich, and had tried to appeal to the sensibilities of the Rich! Inste

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
* = required field	[▶ Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

Flag
Embed	(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options	Do not bump (you can also write sage in the email field) Spoiler images (this replaces the thumbnails of your images with question marks)
Password	(For file and post deletion.)
Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, swf, pdf Max filesize is 8 MB. Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000. You may upload 5 per post.

File: 1444272953087.jpg (17.93 KB, 245x226, 245:226, image.jpg)

Anonymous 10/08/15 (Thu) 02:55:53 No.6716

The Roman elite held onto the Pantheion of Gods long after Christianity had spread throughout the more destitute classes. Imagine how different Christianity would look if Jesus were born rich, and had tried to appeal to the sensibilities of the Rich! Instead of preaching about kindness to the poor, we might have had Scientology much earlier.

(Are there any writings that study how religion develops differently depending on who it originated with?)

Anonymous 10/08/15 (Thu) 09:12:02 No.6717

File: 1444295522216.png (66.7 KB, 916x711, 916:711, 1430134347169.png)

>>6716

>The Roman elite held onto the Pantheion of Gods long after Christianity had spread throughout the more destitute classes.

Understandable. They profited from this kind of order,so they wanted to keep it.

> Imagine how different Christianity would look if Jesus were born rich

Not really that much. I imagine him giving away his wealth and being poor again.

>and had tried to appeal to the sensibilities of the Rich! Instead of preaching about kindness to the poor, we might have had Scientology much earlier.

Why call him Jesus then? This would be a completely different God.

Which is an interesting thought experiment though.

If we assume that there is a God it is not set in stone that he is good, or forgiving or any of this stuff.

There was this one thing of a French philosopher that I read about, I think it was Descartes. Hebrought up the idea that it was possible that God was an evil jinn that tricked humans into believing that he was good while having a laugh over it.

>(Are there any writings that study how religion develops differently depending on who it originated with?)

Most likely, but I don't know any.

But if we take a look at the world Hinduism for example is like the religion you are thinking about. It is all about the upper class with its karma and its preference for the caste system.

Or jewry. Modern jewry talmudism is completely rendered unto the scholarly pharisees, the rabbis. They are the centre of the proposed order and to everything religious.

Muhammed invented Islam mostl as a mean of control and justification for his expansion and imperialism as a warlord.

It's an intriguing thought.

Anonymous 10/08/15 (Thu) 16:16:51 No.6728

I agree that the roman church is an amalgamation of pagan rites and idolatry.

But do not agree that Jesus was rich. What makes you think he was rich? He wad a carpenter helper.

What you mean by the last question? Like how they developed in different countries and cultures?

Anonymous 10/08/15 (Thu) 16:18:15 No.6729

>>6717

>Muhammed invented Islam mostl as a mean of control and justification for his expansion and imperialism as a warlord.

Unlike the papal states

Anonymous 10/08/15 (Thu) 16:54:38 No.6731

>>6728

>I agree that the roman church is an amalgamation of pagan rites and idolatry.

I do not think you got his point.

He is talking about a "what if" scenario and never even mentioned the Catholic Church.

>>6729

What did the Papal states invent? How many wars of aggression were lead by them?

Anonymous 10/08/15 (Thu) 17:06:16 No.6733

>>6731

But I think op only adds the if on jesus doctrine. Not in the church part.

I need a clarification of ops point

Anonymous 10/08/15 (Thu) 17:16:02 No.6734

>>6733

> Not in the church part.

There is no Church part. He was talking about the Roman elite before Rome adopted Christianity as state religion. Back then, before the battle of the milvan bridge, it was uncommon for the Roman upper class, the rich patricians, to be Christians.

Christianity was the religion of the proletarians (roman citizens) and of slaves.

He wants to know what would have happened if it was the other way round.

I say for that being the case there needed to be something in it for the upper class. And for that being the case we would need a different God, not Jesus.

If I got it right that is.

Anonymous 10/08/15 (Thu) 17:21:24 No.6735

>>6734

>proletarians (roman citizens)

Not every Roman citizen was a proletarian. The proletarians were a distinct class among them. Proles means children in Latin. Proletarians are those among the Roman citizens that owned nothing but their offspring. These had to be kept busy with bread and circuses ( panem et circenses) otherwise they would revolt and demand free stuff and entertainment. Just like today.

I wanted just to point out that it was the religion os the outcasts. This lowest class of all and of those within the empire without Roman citizenship, mostly slaves

Anonymous 10/08/15 (Thu) 17:51:34 No.6737

>>6734

I totally didn't get that from op, but makes sense.

Well I would argue that it would have the same result as any other state sponsored church: quick and superficial up until the next cool and superficial religion.

Would christianity get as popular as now? I really dont think so.

Also, proletarians also means those who do not owns the means of productions (ie most people), in the Marxist sense. The lowest of the lowest would be slaves.

I dont agree with saying that the firsts christians were all dirty poor and outcasts. Paul was a roman citizen after all.

Anonymous 10/08/15 (Thu) 21:15:00 No.6742

>>6737

>I don't think it would have gotten as popular as it is now.

If most people are poor and the religion appeals to the poor, it spreads easier. However Christianity in Japan spread with the voluntary conversion rich lords for trading purposes who converted their subjects. Today the new age, Wicca, and neopagan movements have been spreading in the upper classes, and might develop the sophistication to appeal to the mainstream in 300 years. Or they might remain a niche for the elite.

Anonymous 10/08/15 (Thu) 21:23:19 No.6746

>>6742

What gains or facility did the Japanese warlord had for converting to Christianity?

>Today the new age, Wicca, and neopagan movements have been spreading in the upper classes,

While they claim oppression.

Kek.

Anonymous 10/08/15 (Thu) 21:29:15 No.6751

>>6742

> However Christianity in Japan spread with the voluntary conversion rich lords for trading purposes who converted their subjects.

You mean that Japanese peasents converted voluntarily out of faith and that the Daimyos persecuted them while the Shogun went full holocaust mode on them, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyrs_of_Japan

Anonymous 10/09/15 (Fri) 02:57:53 No.6758

>>6751

The peasents were converted by their lords, who themselves had converted to attain favorable trading rights with the Portuguese who they bought guns from. The example shows religion can diffuse downwards from the upper class.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_Christians_of_Japan#Propagation_strategy

Anonymous 10/09/15 (Fri) 12:07:25 No.6763

>>6758

Another not so hidden example, its the one in the bible when Cornelius becomes christian and converts with him all his house and slaves.

And, well, the Spanish conquest of latin America.

And the protestant reformation that started in the upper class and by the decrees of top theologians, princes and king became popular with the peasants.

Anonymous 10/12/15 (Mon) 08:28:12 No.6812

>>6716

I dunno if it would matter. I mean, Buddha was rich and look what he ended up doing.

Anonymous 10/15/15 (Thu) 12:45:26 No.6922

>>6812

>I dunno if it would matter. I mean, Buddha was rich and look what he ended up doing.

Nothing?

Anonymous 10/15/15 (Thu) 13:36:36 No.6937

File: 1444916196686.jpg (23.69 KB, 460x288, 115:72, L_Ron_Hubbard_Tomato.jpg)

>>6812

This, the difference is in *intention*, not circumstance. OP proved his own point moot when he brought up L. Ron Hubbard, who was born poor as all heck and still went on to create a religion with the express purpose of swindling people out of their money; so much so that Scientology centers are segregated between regular ones and Special Celebrity Auditing centers to cater specifically to the needs of the rich and naive.

>>6922

I kek'd.