Religion: a word that means a few things, to a lot of people, comes to us via good old starchy old Latin. From the verb ligare: "to tie or bind", I s'pose it means: to "re-bind", or "tie again". Most religions have started out as followings, or what we know as cults (there were more than a handful of these in the Levant, about the same historical period as a well-known religious hero: Jesus Christ). Islam was initially a smallish band of believers and followers (some sat in the same cave and wrote down their hero's every word). Once there's a following, someone notices it getting bigger, and sees the potential for control of the masses; often certain key ideas are retained, but the "cult following" becomes a religion only when it has other, wider-ranging political attributes (lots of people believe, and follow cult leaders around). It can't look too different from the original, because there's presumably a danger of rejection, by the same masses those in positions of power wish to control. It becomes a panacea, and also necessarily involves "surrender" to a cause, and being "bound to", a doctrine. Islam looks, on the face of it, to have failed in this regard - it hasn't resulted in a world-wide political system that acts with "one voice" (a papal voice). The Islamic world is greatly divided, even at the outset, there were ethnic "issues" (there still are: Arabs consider themselves the only "true" muslims, and the Arabic tongue the only "sacred" language). There were multiple contending Islamic factions, in medieval times, wanting to become empires - The Seleucids and Seljuks fought each other and one established the Ottoman Empire - arguably the Islamic equivalent of the Holy Roman Empire. The big contrast, is that Christianity (Catholicism) had a leader, who influenced every Christian "emperor"; he was the head honcho. Islam didn't and still doesn't. The "triumph" of Christianity over pagan Europe, and the establishment of doctrine saw a relatively "quietened" Western religious empire - Rome no longer needed to conquer or suppress, excommunication and papal edict (bits of paper), were sufficient, once people (emperors and kings, too) were in the "grip" of religio-political "belief", in the West. The lack of an over-arching "leader", or the disconnection that most Eastern peoples made--from the idea of Arabia being the equivalent of a catholic "centre" of doctrine, rather seeking their own, under their own ethnic banner, means that Islam didn't "triumph" to the same extent. Today, although it's a big religion (fastest growing), it doesn't have, or it hasn't achieved the same political ends. You think?
Christianity today has had much of its previous power diluted, following the Enlightenment. Most Christians today live in largely secular states which have de facto separation of church and state. The past history of Christianity, however, shows that historically it wielded huge amounts of political power and influence, from the time of its early establishment in the first century CE until at least the Renaissance in around 1600 CE. Any book on western world history will tell you about the politics of Christianity.
Thats what I figured too, however the OP intimated that Christianity is somehow successful at attaining its political goals in a present context, so I wondered what it referred to. Perhaps I misunderstood.
Hm, not sure why I mention the Seleucids - a Hellenistic empire...? The Seljuks (Turks) were initially pagans from Anatolia, or somewhere, who converted to Islam way back, and ended up ruling most of the muslim world, for a while (collapsed altogether in the early 20th century), and they fought a lot of other "tribes", including other muslims (just like in the West), for territory and expansion of the Empire. They were successful, but the "empire" has mostly crumbled (secularity is a kind of "defensive reaction", methinks). Rome is still powerful today, though. Christianity certainly had a pretty big influence
Sam, While Christianity no longer has the direct power it once had in the world of politics the implicit power is still there - much greater in some countries than others. The Pope can no longer make, institute and enforce laws, but the majority of people consider their religious faith and the words of their clergy leaders when they cast ballots.
Xitianity doesn't sing with a single voice and has not political goals in and of itself. Today's Xianity reminds me of what Pagan Religions must have been like around 100BCE-200CE. Various evangelicals competing for patrons. We have everything from dooms day cults, to 90-percenters (is that right?) to Xenu - all competing for patrons. I think the fastest evolving meme-virus.. ooo I mean substitution beleif meant to be take seriously ... and thus most successful - are evangelical Xians. Once let lose in Korea in <50 years now - over 50% of Koreans are infected evangelicals. Scary poop man..l. Religion - from religare to restrain. Restrain - from restringere to deprive of liberty.
How about "yesterday's" version? Secularity, has become something of a "rebound" effect, from the demise of said empire, IMO. The failure of the Christian-Roman political system took ~1200 years (what you refer to as "Xitianity"), Islam was kind of doomed from the outset, because of their lack of any real central, guiding dogma or overall "leadership". Their religious hero wasn't "sacrificed" to promote a cause, but lived to a fairly ripe old age and was a successful businessman and militarist. He knew the importance of leadership, but didn't really provide for any succession to his "throne", so it, and the possibility of an Islamic "Vatican", disappeared with him - his ideas, the Qu'ran and all, weren't enough obviously.
"Most Religions". Should we not just be speaking of the the Important Religions. In your terms "most Religions" never got beyond the stage of being a local cult. But the Major Religions provided the Social Institutions for Morality and Ethics that had made Civilization possible out of the nihilism and chaos of Barbarism. Now, our Society today is undergoing a moral collapse. We are experiencing the decline and fall of a Civilization. So it is logical that you can look around and not identify an Religion as being a Social Institution for Morality and Ethics. A Universal Skepticism as swept aside any such notion. Actually, we have not been Civilized for quite some time. We have been fooled by the fact that Barbarism had been doing so well, but the extreme lack of any Social, Moral or Ethical Institutions will soon catch up to it all, and it will all come crashing down into chaos. But, then again, it has. Peter Turchin, in his interesting book "War Peace and War" describes the decline of a Civilization as being cyclic and progressive. A Civilization collapses in stages. Our Civilization was shaken to its core by the Black Plague, then its Religion was destroyed by the Protestant Rebellion, and then we have been experiencing a progression of violent revolutions and wars ever since. Democracy, for all the Idealism that it pretends, has proven to be nothing more than an excuse for one civil war after another. Politicians argue that Democracy brings Peace, but a look at History shows exactly the contrary result. Anyway, what will happen, with the Collapse of Civilization is that ALL Social Institutions will collapse, leading us into a pitiful Dark Age. Population will be decimated. Well, such a rather sharp decline in Population will tend to help matters. Lightly populated regions minimize political and economic tensions. However, any subsequent population growth reintroduces conflict -- the Wars between competing Barbarian Tribes for new land and resources. The Tribe that WINS will be the Tribe that can unite collectively. It really turns out to be a competition between Religions. The BEST Religion can reconcile to Peace the largest densities of Population, and do so the longest.
Are you referring to the Christianised West, here? If so, when was it "civilised"; what are the criteria for "being civilised"? The plagues certainly cast a pall over much of Europe, just look at the art and culture from then; but so did the Golden Horde. The Protestant movement brought about the Reformation, didn't it? The "progression of violent wars" you refer to stretches back to the dawn of history, surely. The Middle Ages were one big European stoush after another, mediated (with only limited success) by a Vatican whose papal edicts addressed such issues as the invention of the crossbow (which made an ordinary soldier a marksman, rather than having to train for years as an archer with an old-fashioned bow). The Pope proscribed their use against fellow Christians, but okayed them against heretics, i.e. Muslims during the Crusades. History, when you look into it, is one big battleground.
i would have to say that 2 things have together caused the downfall of religion unless it can re invent its basic purpose, that is science and Politics. Science because it gave people another place to turn to for answers to why the universe is the way it is. Politics because it gave people access to OTHER methods of determining morality. It also gave people other methods of determing dispute resolution and other ways of social cohesion. These were religion's main purposes and they were slowly subverted as better options became avialable.
OK, but "downfall" isn't really an accurate description of the state of major religions at the mo. Failure, in that they've failed to become a "world order", is a closer metaphor. Christianity was the West's religious/philosophical model for a fair stretch of its history. The East tried to emulate this, from the 6th-7th century onwards, but it hasn't really lasted the distance either; although the Ottomans were arguably the best example of a modernist Islamic philosophy (tolerant of other religions and actively engaged in science, and gave the West a lot of "discoveries", and useful math and so on), they just didn't cut it on the same kind of stability (arguably because of the different ecclesiasty and heirarchy). They were always prone to incursion, from other Islamic empire-builders, and "infidels" (the Arabic equiv. of "pagan", or "barbarian"); but they replaced the Romans (the Byzantines, and any rump Hellenistic empires in the region). Their strengths, however, couldn't resist a resurgent Western christianised "religious" movement, and the reformation, or repositioning of the status and role of religion and catholicism, and secularity that led the West to the Renasisance, but left the East in the Middle Ages. In other words, the West is in the lead in terms of science, technology, and industry because it has managed to free itself from religious stricture. (Note the thread title: religion has failed to live up to its promises)
Buddhism was the first religion to spread - to be actively proselytised by its followers; and there were several ancient kingdoms in Asia that were Buddhist. About 500 years after his death, Buddhism was practised as the teachings of a divine being, and his image worshipped widely - contrary to his wishes. Buddha was born a Hindu - into a caste system that structured society on religious grounds (although the belief in a hierarchy, with a "caste" at the head came straight from the conquest-style origin of the Aryan races that colonised the Indus and Ganges about the same time the Egyptians were building the first big monuments and temples). The Jains and Persians were influenced by and in turn influenced, Hindu mythology. There's plenty of evidence that the Hebrews (Iberas - of Iber, or Eber), adopted monotheism from the Hindus and other mythology from Egypt and Mesopotamia. Judaism - the religion and its "Law" or books of the Torah, a kind of ethical monotheism (at least that's what the OT appears to reflect from the reign of David onwards). The story appears to be that the Jews kept failing, or the kings kept failing, to follow the "Law" (religious doctrine), so they never got their promised land. They failed their religion, and got enslaved by the Babylonians, conquered by the Assyrians, and eventually "destroyed" by the Romans. Christianity, or the messianic cults that it came from, was essentially born from the oppression and the need to save their mythology. I would say the original movement (and given the way Romans treated the early Christians), did not look much like it does now, or after the Romans finally got the hint, and adopted it (right before the Roman Empire collapsed - but the church survived, obviously, the movement was never turned out of Rome even when the peninsula was ruled by an Ostrogoth "king"). Modern Christianity, that the Roman Catholics were the sole representatives of in the West, got hijacked early on and became a political system. Even the way it was adopted - by the emperor Constantine as a military banner and as a "state religion". The same emperor who divided the empire in two - look what happened, though. Christianity got split too, into the catholic and orthodox branches - East and West.
