What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[viper37]

I've also read that one of the early drivers of conversion to Christianity was that it gave merchants in the Roman empire counterparties they felt they could trust more.

More like Christianity was open to everyone and promise an eternal peace after a life of hardship.

For slaves and people who lived in misery, it had a real appeal.  Roman religions and diverse cults at the time had a lot of appeal to soldiers, generals, merchants, nobility, general high class citizens, but not much to offer to the masses.  Sacrificing a bull to please the gods is all nice, but it doesn't bring much when you need that bull to plow your fields.

A promise that if you do a little prayer here and there, you will forever live in peace, no disease, no servitude, no barbarians trying to kill you, equal to all, that had a lot of appeal when things started to go wrong for the Empire, when disease came rampaging, when civil wars came in concert with Persian and Barbarian invasions to destabilize the Empire.

Merchants weren't the first converts, they followed the class they were in.  At the bottom, they converted first.  At the top, they probably converted last, remaining cautious, like the Emperors who converted.

[The Minsky Moment]

Understanding the past and the motivations of people in the past is hindered not just by lack of source materials but by the sheer differences between present lives and past lives.  Even now, we struggle to fully understand phenomena like support for Trump or Le Pen, despite the fact that is happening right in front of us and we have access to vast quantities of data and information. What hope can we have of truly understanding something like the rise of Christianity nearly 2000 years ago?

One basic reality that divides past from present experience is the high levels of maternal mortality in pre-modern times. A wealthy, high status young woman of the Roman Empire might look forward to marriage to a high status man, because that marriage could bring greater wealth and influence.  But it was also likely a death sentence, because the process of reproduction during child-bearing years was the equivalent of playing Russian roulette a dozen times. 

In that context, it's not suprising to see "exit ramps" for high status arising from time to time in ancient history, such as the Naditu in ancient Babylon or the Vestals in Rome.

In early Christianity of course, there are many examples of high-status and wealthy women taking vows of chastity.  This would not have been an option in Judaism (for example) where although there are strict rules against adultery, chastity is not a virtue.  The history of the early Church indicates that wealthy women played a very significant role in patronage, financial and otherwise.  The attraction of early Christianity to slaves is sometimes discussed, but what one often sees is that the slaves in question are associated with some Christian patroness. My sense is that the attraction of Christianity to women - and wealthy women in particular - was a key "secret weapon" in its rise.

[Jacob]

Interesting thesis, Minsky. I hadn't come across it before, but at first blush it makes sense.

[Valmy]

The last people to convert were the farmers right? Because pagan just means country person yes?

If Christianity really was a big attractor to the downtrodden, surely the hard working farmers would have converted before the cities.

[Josquius]

Understanding the past and the motivations of people in the past is hindered not just by lack of source materials but by the sheer differences between present lives and past lives.  Even now, we struggle to fully understand phenomena like support for Trump or Le Pen, despite the fact that is happening right in front of us and we have access to vast quantities of data and information. What hope can we have of truly understanding something like the rise of Christianity nearly 2000 years ago?

One basic reality that divides past from present experience is the high levels of maternal mortality in pre-modern times. A wealthy, high status young woman of the Roman Empire might look forward to marriage to a high status man, because that marriage could bring greater wealth and influence.  But it was also likely a death sentence, because the process of reproduction during child-bearing years was the equivalent of playing Russian roulette a dozen times. 

In that context, it's not suprising to see "exit ramps" for high status arising from time to time in ancient history, such as the Naditu in ancient Babylon or the Vestals in Rome.

In early Christianity of course, there are many examples of high-status and wealthy women taking vows of chastity.  This would not have been an option in Judaism (for example) where although there are strict rules against adultery, chastity is not a virtue.  The history of the early Church indicates that wealthy women played a very significant role in patronage, financial and otherwise.  The attraction of early Christianity to slaves is sometimes discussed, but what one often sees is that the slaves in question are associated with some Christian patroness. My sense is that the attraction of Christianity to women - and wealthy women in particular - was a key "secret weapon" in its rise.

I dont know. Sex = kids = danger might feel logical but would people have really thought in those terms?
Seems to draw a bit close to the women don't like sex strain of thought.
Pregnancy was(/is) objectively shit, but I've seen nothing to suggest a widespread wish to avoid it.

But certainly with later conversions of germanic people's the women were usually key: queens and other prominent women converting first and bringing their kids in line with them.

[Admiral Yi]

<snip>

Joan, you are beyond a doubt the greatest thinker on Languish, but in this case you first dismissed all other generalities as generalities but then replaced them with your own favored generality.

[Gups]

Reading a book on the history of teh Duchy of Burgundy. The writer makes the point that until the C14th (in Western Europe at least), Christianity was an elite religion. Peasants etc were expected to profess it but had virtually  no understanding of it (not just the theology but even the basic stories - e.g. services and teh Bible were in Latin, religious art and architecure was symbolic.

[Josquius]

Reading a book on the history of teh Duchy of Burgundy. The writer makes the point that until the C14th (in Western Europe at least), Christianity was an elite religion. Peasants etc were expected to profess it but had virtually  no understanding of it (not just the theology but even the basic stories - e.g. services and teh Bible were in Latin, religious art and architecure was symbolic.

What changed in the 14th century?

But yes. This certainly lines up with all I've heard (just yesterday saw a cool video about time travel advice that included this topic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fWrJ4WHz_g ).
People were christian as that was what they were expected to be, but they didn't actually 'get' much about it, just a vague belief in supernatural woo when the priest came along to bless them. Really quite interesting in how the peasant outlook on religion lines up so much with the typical old pagan outlook on religion.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Reading a book on the history of teh Duchy of Burgundy. The writer makes the point that until the C14th (in Western Europe at least), Christianity was an elite religion. Peasants etc were expected to profess it but had virtually  no understanding of it (not just the theology but even the basic stories - e.g. services and teh Bible were in Latin, religious art and architecure was symbolic.

Back in the middleages, when I was still at university, one of the profs mentioned that during the early (but not the very early) parts of the Medieval period there were apparently books written with the do's and don'ts on proper religious practices for the people (lords and subject both) in an attempt to root out pagan practices. And from what I remember these manuals were in use, in some form or another, for centuries in Europe since it took a very long time to stamp out residual paganism, especially away from the population centers.

Basically the internalisation of the religion into the culture could take up to half a millenium. (and lets be serious: that also includes a lot of absorption of earlier practices into christianity)

Now if we look at the regions that were more recently converted it seems it might indeed be so. Still lots of pre-christian stuff going around in South-America and Africa.

That said: it's decades ago that I've heard this so I could be misremembering

[Gups]

Reading a book on the history of teh Duchy of Burgundy. The writer makes the point that until the C14th (in Western Europe at least), Christianity was an elite religion. Peasants etc were expected to profess it but had virtually  no understanding of it (not just the theology but even the basic stories - e.g. services and teh Bible were in Latin, religious art and architecure was symbolic.

What changed in the 14th century?

But yes. This certainly lines up with all I've heard (just yesterday saw a cool video about time travel advice that included this topic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fWrJ4WHz_g ).
People were christian as that was what they were expected to be, but they didn't actually get much about it, just a vague belief in supernatural woo when the priest came along to bless them. Really quite interesting in how the peasant outlook on religion lines up so much with the typical old pagan outlook on religion.

Itinerant preachers apparently

[crazy canuck]

<snip>

Joan, you are beyond a doubt the greatest thinker on Languish, but in this case you first dismissed all other generalities as generalities but then replaced them with your own favored generality.

It's not a generality. The phenomenon is well documented.

I assume one of the sources JR is pulling from for that observation is this book by one of the eminent scholars studying the origins of Christianity.

It's a good read, and I highly recommend it.

I should add that after you have read the book, you will probably rethink your view about traders thinking that Christianity was a good idea given the early Christian views about the accumulation of wealth.

https://www.amazon.ca/Through-Eye-Needle-Christianity-350-550/dp/0691161771/ref=asc_df_0691161771/?tag=googlemobshop-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=293035264504&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=7287418978215487438&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=m&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9001575&hvtargid=pla-646631643112&psc=1&mcid=8bafa9611fb13319a76c87858880b3f8

[DGuller]

Joan, you are beyond a doubt the greatest thinker on Languish,

[grumbler]

Joan, you are beyond a doubt the greatest thinker on Languish,

Nobody who doubts Yi's assertion can possible be the true greatest thinker on Languish.

[Savonarola]

Trump's latest campaign ad is... well, having recently watched "Lawrence of Arabia", I kept on imagining Anthony Quinn shouting "Blasphemer" at it:

I couldn't make it through the whole thing, but Evangelicals will probably eat it up.  In any event we should rejoice in God's superior creation, woman:

[Razgovory]

Is that really a Trump ad?