🎓 Academic Why Christianity is the Best Thing That Ever Happened to the World

[Asherah Goddess]

I think we are going in circles a bit, so let me answer the core point directly and simply.

Believing in one true God does not automatically equal intolerance. It simply means the religion believes truth is real. Every worldview does this. Even saying pluralism is better than exclusivism is already saying one idea is more true than another. That is also a truth claim.​

Umiikot tayo in circles dahil meron ka dini-defend. Hindi tanggap sayo kapag sinabi ko na ang Abrahamic ay not tolerant sa other beliefs dahil ang pagka-structure ng belief system is meron "one true God" kung saan, meron 100% true and 100% wrong.

It is a reason why sinasabi mo na , "
Believing in one true God does not automatically equal intolerance ". Gusto mo ako kumbinsihin na " uy, ang Abrahamic beliefs noh? Tolerant din sila! Tolerant din sila! " ~ ganun ang dating.

...pagkatapos napupunta ka sa worldview imbis ang itinutukoy ko lang kung pagkaka-structure ng belief system mismo.

So umiikot lang talaga tayo in circles
​

Also, pluralism in ancient pagan societies was not the same as modern tolerance. Rome allowed many gods, yes, but only if you honored the state religion. The moment a group refused to worship the state gods, they were punished. That is exactly what happened to early Christians. That is not real religious freedom. That is “you are free as long as you agree with the system.”​

Ah. Okay. So hindi tolerant ang Roman Pagan sa Christian dahil sa ginawa ng Pagan sa kanila at dahil sa ganun trato sa Christian, ang Pagan is not tolerant. O siya, sige. Sabi mo eh.​

About the movie Agora. A movie is not a history textbook. It is a dramatized film designed to tell a story and create emotion. Real history is much more complex than one movie scene. Libraries were destroyed many times in history by wars, riots, and political conflicts long before and after Christianity. Blaming the entire 1400 years of history on one religion oversimplifies a very messy human story.​

Hindi naman biniblame ang history ng 1400 years po. Remember kasi diba? Nag open up na walang state punishment ang Christian. Ako ang nag-open up na meron religious state punishment ang Christian po. History po kasi siya. Walang sinisisi.

Nasa academic history books po siya na matatagpuan po sa university libraries katulad ng university of the philippines or sa international universities , mga "archives" , sa museum archives or sa mga peer-reviewed journals po, ito ang mga academic magazines kung saan ang mga historian ay kinakailangan eprove ang facts nila sa mga experts at allowed sila epublish.

Ang gumagamit diyan is mga historians and archeologists, lawyers and political scientists dahil gusto nila pag-aralan or intindihin ang modern laws kung papaano naembento para ma-stop or maging gabay para hindi na maulit ang power in the past.

So ang Agora is an historical events po siya at history ng panahon nang nag transition ang Pagan philosophy to Christian kingdom nang nagkaroon ng religious state power. True to life story din po siya sa buhay ng isang female pagan philosophers and astronomers, but ang library is exact historical events kung papaano sinira ang lahat ng Pagan books and science po.

Hindi siya standard historical text na inaasahan mo dahil remember? We lived in Christian society so clean-up na siya at skipped. Ang focus or ang scope is all about Christian. Nga naman gagawin nilang standard historical textbook, e di nagsibuklatan ang mga dark na ginawa ng mga Christian. Papaano epropromote ang kagandahan ng belief system kung isasama ang pangit.​

And about Christianity spreading only because of power. Christianity spread for around three centuries before it had any political power at all. No army. No empire. No government support. Yet it kept growing. That matters.​

O sige na. Sabi mo eh. Kung ano sinabi mo, e di yun. No army. No empire. No state punishment. It grows and that matters.​

Yes, Christianity later became tied to political power. That is true. But that has happened to many belief systems in history. When any worldview gains power, humans can misuse it. That is a human problem, not proof that the belief itself is false.

So the question is still the same. If Christianity only spread by force, why did it grow so fast when it had no power at the beginning? That part of history cannot be ignored.​

Kapag nagrely tayo sa mga disciple, tama, walang violence talaga. Walang political power. You know? Naka-sandal lang sila. Actually, kapag wala siyang force political power, malamang, nasa minority lang ang Christian beliefs. Hindi siya massive beliefs system po if nakarating tayo in modern po.

Parang business lang yan. Kung gusto eleverage or lumawak at maging influential ang business, gagawin ang lahat para eban o pabagsakin ang competitors mismo ng businesses. Ganun. Ngayon, kapag hindi gagawin, malamang, hanggang small business lang diyan sa specific location mismo.

Ganun lang yun.​

 

[Asherah Goddess]

Anyway, naiintindihan ko ang point like keyso naging billion followers dahil sa no political power, pa-sandal-sandal lang. Well, iyon ang ideal na nasa utak ng mga Christian dahil clean-up and skipped na po kasi siya. It is all about Christian na siya like being martyrd, like inaapi, kumalat ang salita ng Diyos na walang force na in fact, kapag walang political power at pa-simple-simple lang sila, existing pa rin ang mga Christian beliefs pero minority lang sila kapag hindi existing ang mga ganyan.

In short, hindi siya realistic Ika nga, if they need to have leverage and to be influential, anong gagawin? Kailangan you have to hold the political power to get what they want.

Ganun din sa mga tao eh. Diba? Wala naman pasimple-simple pagkatapos, ang sasabihin na yumaman dahil sa pagiging simple kuno. Hindi siya realistic. If gusto yumaman, kailangan maging ambitious.​

 

[Gildarts Tale]

Umiikot tayo in circles dahil meron ka dini-defend. Hindi tanggap sayo kapag sinabi ko na ang Abrahamic ay not tolerant sa other beliefs dahil ang pagka-structure ng belief system is meron "one true God" kung saan, meron 100% true and 100% wrong.

It is a reason why sinasabi mo na , "
Believing in one true God does not automatically equal intolerance ". Gusto mo ako kumbinsihin na " uy, ang Abrahamic beliefs noh? Tolerant din sila! Tolerant din sila! " ~ ganun ang dating.

...pagkatapos napupunta ka sa worldview imbis ang itinutukoy ko lang kung pagkaka-structure ng belief system mismo.

So umiikot lang talaga tayo in circles



Ah. Okay. So hindi tolerant ang Roman Pagan sa Christian dahil sa ginawa ng Pagan sa kanila at dahil sa ganun trato sa Christian, ang Pagan is not tolerant. O siya, sige. Sabi mo eh.



Hindi naman biniblame ang history ng 1400 years po. Remember kasi diba? Nag open up na walang state punishment ang Christian. Ako ang nag-open up na meron religious state punishment ang Christian po. History po kasi siya. Walang sinisisi.

Nasa academic history books po siya na matatagpuan po sa university libraries katulad ng university of the philippines or sa international universities , mga "archives" , sa museum archives or sa mga peer-reviewed journals po, ito ang mga academic magazines kung saan ang mga historian ay kinakailangan eprove ang facts nila sa mga experts at allowed sila epublish.

Ang gumagamit diyan is mga historians and archeologists, lawyers and political scientists dahil gusto nila pag-aralan or intindihin ang modern laws kung papaano naembento para ma-stop or maging gabay para hindi na maulit ang power in the past.

So ang Agora is an historical events po siya at history ng panahon nang nag transition ang Pagan philosophy to Christian kingdom nang nagkaroon ng religious state power. True to life story din po siya sa buhay ng isang female pagan philosophers and astronomers, but ang library is exact historical events kung papaano sinira ang lahat ng Pagan books and science po.

Hindi siya standard historical text na inaasahan mo dahil remember? We lived in Christian society so clean-up na siya at skipped. Ang focus or ang scope is all about Christian. Nga naman gagawin nilang standard historical textbook, e di nagsibuklatan ang mga dark na ginawa ng mga Christian. Papaano epropromote ang kagandahan ng belief system kung isasama ang pangit.



O sige na. Sabi mo eh. Kung ano sinabi mo, e di yun. No army. No empire. No state punishment. It grows and that matters.



Kapag nagrely tayo sa mga disciple, tama, walang violence talaga. Walang political power. You know? Naka-sandal lang sila. Actually, kapag wala siyang force political power, malamang, nasa minority lang ang Christian beliefs. Hindi siya massive beliefs system po if nakarating tayo in modern po.

Parang business lang yan. Kung gusto eleverage or lumawak at maging influential ang business, gagawin ang lahat para eban o pabagsakin ang competitors mismo ng businesses. Ganun. Ngayon, kapag hindi gagawin, malamang, hanggang small business lang diyan sa specific location mismo.

Ganun lang yun.​

Anyway, naiintindihan ko ang point like keyso naging billion followers dahil sa no political power, pa-sandal-sandal lang. Well, iyon ang ideal na nasa utak ng mga Christian dahil clean-up and skipped na po kasi siya. It is all about Christian na siya like being martyrd, like inaapi, kumalat ang salita ng Diyos na walang force na in fact, kapag walang political power at pa-simple-simple lang sila, existing pa rin ang mga Christian beliefs pero minority lang sila kapag hindi existing ang mga ganyan.

In short, hindi siya realistic Ika nga, if they need to have leverage and to be influential, anong gagawin? Kailangan you have to hold the political power to get what they want.

Ganun din sa mga tao eh. Diba? Wala naman pasimple-simple pagkatapos, ang sasabihin na yumaman dahil sa pagiging simple kuno. Hindi siya realistic. If gusto yumaman, kailangan maging ambitious.​

We are circling because you keep redefining the point. You say you are only talking about “structure,” but then you jump to history, politics, and motives. Those are not just structure anymore. That is a bigger claim.

Believing there is one true God does not equal being unable to tolerate others. That is the leap you keep making without proof. A truth claim is about what you think is real. Tolerance is about how you treat people who disagree. Those are not the same thing.

You also keep assuming Christianity only became global because of power. But that ignores a basic timeline problem. Christianity spread across the Roman Empire for about 300 years while it was îllégâl, persecuted, and had zero political leverage. You can say power later accelerated growth. That is fair. But you cannot erase the first three centuries. A movement does not survive and grow under persecution for centuries if it has no real appeal to people.

Your business analogy actually proves the opposite of your point. Most small movements disappear when they have no power. Christianity did not disappear. It grew anyway. That is the part your explanation still does not account for.

And the “cleanup history” idea is speculation. Historians debate details all the time, including dark chapters of Christian history. That is not hidden. It is widely studied and openly discussed.

So the real issue is this. Yes, Christianity later gained political power and sometimes misused it. No one denies that. But saying its global influence is only because of power ignores how and why it survived and expanded long before it had any power at all. That part still needs a better explanation than “it is unrealistic.”

 

[DarkLordZeref1221]

Both religious and non-religious people have supported and resisted new ideas at different times.

But religion resisted it so bad that Georg Simon Ohm was proud.

 

[Gildarts Tale]

But religion resisted it so bad that Georg Simon Ohm was proud.

Yes, some church authorities criticized or ignored Georg Simon Ohm at first. But that was a reaction from certain academics and institutions, not “religion as a whole.”

Ohm was not fighting Christianity itself. He was a German teacher working in a Christian society, teaching in Christian-founded schools, using math and physics that developed inside European universities that originally grew out of church institutions.

Scientists being criticized or ignored when they introduce new ideas is normal in history. It happened inside religious societies and inside secular ones. New ideas often face resistance from the academic community first, not just religion.

 

[Asherah Goddess]

We are circling because you keep redefining the point. You say you are only talking about “structure,” but then you jump to history, politics, and motives. Those are not just structure anymore. That is a bigger claim.​

Ikaw ang unang nag-open up about history ng Pagan kung saan meron persecution, ikaw ang unang nag-open up about without state religion punishment ang Christian, ikaw din ang unang nag-open up na ang non-Abrahamic is not tolerant din. Naka-focus ka sa "internal beliefs" mismo so as a result, ako, nagrespond lang ako.

Nilatag ko o ibinahagi ko kung baga ang kung ano ang alam ko na "history" na natutunan ko basi sa kung ano ang history na meron na alam mo. As a result, nag-clash ang "history sa history" natin dalawa na dapat andoon lang tayo sa sinasabi ko na ang Abrahamic beliefs ay hindi tolerant sa ibang belief system dahil ang built-in ng pagkastructure ng belief system po nila is exclusive po which is meron "one true God" na meron 100% true at 100% wrong.

Nag-expect ako na madali mo siya tanggapin pero hindi mo pala tanggap, kaya napunta ka na sa persecution ng Pagan, napunta ka na sa worldview...... mga ganun?​

Believing there is one true God does not equal being unable to tolerate others. That is the leap you keep making without proof. A truth claim is about what you think is real. Tolerance is about how you treat people who disagree. Those are not the same thing.​

......katulad nito. Napunta ka na sa "internal " ng pananampalataya at paniniwala about one true God, it does not mean, unable to tolerate other beliefs. Oh, siya. Kung yan ang gusto mo.
​

You also keep assuming Christianity only became global because of power. But that ignores a basic timeline problem. Christianity spread across the Roman Empire for about 300 years while it was îllégâl, persecuted, and had zero political leverage. You can say power later accelerated growth. That is fair. But you cannot erase the first three centuries. A movement does not survive and grow under persecution for centuries if it has no real appeal to people.​

Meron "appeal" naman sa mga tao ang Christianity ng mga first three centuries na sinasabi mo. Kaya ang reason, meron nagpapa-convert pero kapag walang colonialism and imperialism na galing sa religion state power as in ay hindi siya magiging "massive global" ang Christianity bilang major belief system po.

Sakaling walang religion state ang Christianism dati, without political power, yes po, buhay na buhay pa rin ang Christian beliefs kahit itong modern society. The only difference is magiging minority lang siya na katulad ng Taoism. Hindi siya ganun ka massive na itinagurian na nangunguna pagdating sa religious beliefs.​

Your business analogy actually proves the opposite of your point. Most small movements disappear when they have no power. Christianity did not disappear. It grew anyway. That is the part your explanation still does not account for.​

Oo, karamihan ng small movements ay nawala. Christian movements ang naka-survive noon. Hindi nawala. Hindi naman porke hindi nawala at naging successful, sila itong nag-expand and naging massive beliefs globally at naging influential sa lahat ng bawat sulok ng nasasakupan.

State religion ng Christianism ang nagpa-expand globally through colonialism and imperialism. In simplify terms, "state religion ang nag-endorse ng Christianity" bilang 100% true at kung sino man ang non-Christian, sila ang itinagurian na 100% wrong.

Wala sa utak nila ang about " ...human equality and individual dignity " dahil ang kanila, sa kanila, ang ipinapaandar lamang nila is walang iba kungdi ang kanilang religious faith na there is " only one true God ". Ang mga religious soldier, ang trabaho lang nila is mag-hunt ng mga tao na hindi Christian. Forced conversion po ang ginawa nila. Andiyan ang torture, death penalty, tatanggalin ang ari-arian ng tao mismo kung kaya, takot ang mga tao at wala din sila abilidad na umalis sa beliefs nila.

Yan ang sinasabi ko na masyado exclusive kasi ang paniniwala nila na "there is only one true God". Pananampalataya nila yun and hindi ko masisisi sila dahil sabi ko, iba kasi ang pagka-built in ng structure ng belief system nila. In short, ang belief social system nila bilang buo is ganun lang ang pagkakagawa sa kanila.

Yung mga 3 centuries na sinasabi mo na walang army, walang violence..... may appeal siya to some people, to some people pero pagdating sa pananampalataya, ang nag-"endorse" ay state religion government na po.​

And the “cleanup history” idea is speculation. Historians debate details all the time, including dark chapters of Christian history. That is not hidden. It is widely studied and openly discussed.​

Kapag sinabi "cleanup history" is halimbawa, ang 3 centuries at 1400 years na state religion power from Christianism ay kasama sa history, ang ginawa is tinanggal lang ang 1400 years history terror from the state religion power para malinis siya at walang bahid na dumi.

So ang makikita is mga standard ng historical text katulad ng 3 centuries, mga lion den..... talaga maganda siya pero ang 1400 years history ng state religion power ay nasa "archives" na kung baga mahirap hanapin at mahirap makita ng iba.

Kahit nga ang religious tolerance ay naka-archive eh. Experience ko lang. Hirap hanapin online. Sobrang hirap pero ang nagconduct ng research is atheist, buddhist, non-religious christian at ang socio-anthropologist.

Ang religious tolerance is para sa mga tao na gusto maunawaan at ma open ang mind sa other beliefs. Mahirap siya hanapin pero informative ang nakasulat.​

So the real issue is this. Yes, Christianity later gained political power and sometimes misused it. No one denies that. But saying its global influence is only because of power ignores how and why it survived and expanded long before it had any power at all. That part still needs a better explanation than “it is unrealistic."​

Ah. So bale, ang gusto mo epoint out na ang state religion power from Christianism is hindi nanggaling sa kanila kung papaano nag-expand ang belief system globally bagkus, ang gusto mo epoint out is galing 3 centuries ng mga disciple noon na naka-sandal na walang army, na walang political power why na expand globally ang beliefs system sa lahat bago nagkaroon ng state religion power.

Ahhhh. Okay. Hindi kita mapipilit. Kung yun ang iyo na sinasabi na expand ang belief system globally dahil sa 3 centuries ng mga disciple na walang political power, okay fine, o siya, o sige.

Okay na rin yun. Para "malinis" dahil kapag nakatingin ang tao sa pangit like state religion power na ginawa ng Christianism is you know? Medio negative at pangit diba? So good kung doon na lang sa sinasabi na 3 centuries ng mga disciple na walang political power na sila ang nag-expand globally.​

 

[Gildarts Tale]

Ikaw ang unang nag-open up about history ng Pagan kung saan meron persecution, ikaw ang unang nag-open up about without state religion punishment ang Christian, ikaw din ang unang nag-open up na ang non-Abrahamic is not tolerant din. Naka-focus ka sa "internal beliefs" mismo so as a result, ako, nagrespond lang ako.

Nilatag ko o ibinahagi ko kung baga ang kung ano ang alam ko na "history" na natutunan ko basi sa kung ano ang history na meron na alam mo. As a result, nag-clash ang "history sa history" natin dalawa na dapat andoon lang tayo sa sinasabi ko na ang Abrahamic beliefs ay hindi tolerant sa ibang belief system dahil ang built-in ng pagkastructure ng belief system po nila is exclusive po which is meron "one true God" na meron 100% true at 100% wrong.

Nag-expect ako na madali mo siya tanggapin pero hindi mo pala tanggap, kaya napunta ka na sa persecution ng Pagan, napunta ka na sa worldview...... mga ganun?



......katulad nito. Napunta ka na sa "internal " ng pananampalataya at paniniwala about one true God, it does not mean, unable to tolerate other beliefs. Oh, siya. Kung yan ang gusto mo.



Meron "appeal" naman sa mga tao ang Christianity ng mga first three centuries na sinasabi mo. Kaya ang reason, meron nagpapa-convert pero kapag walang colonialism and imperialism na galing sa religion state power as in ay hindi siya magiging "massive global" ang Christianity bilang major belief system po.

Sakaling walang religion state ang Christianism dati, without political power, yes po, buhay na buhay pa rin ang Christian beliefs kahit itong modern society. The only difference is magiging minority lang siya na katulad ng Taoism. Hindi siya ganun ka massive na itinagurian na nangunguna pagdating sa religious beliefs.



Oo, karamihan ng small movements ay nawala. Christian movements ang naka-survive noon. Hindi nawala. Hindi naman porke hindi nawala at naging successful, sila itong nag-expand and naging massive beliefs globally at naging influential sa lahat ng bawat sulok ng nasasakupan.

State religion ng Christianism ang nagpa-expand globally through colonialism and imperialism. In simplify terms, "state religion ang nag-endorse ng Christianity" bilang 100% true at kung sino man ang non-Christian, sila ang itinagurian na 100% wrong.

Wala sa utak nila ang about " ...human equality and individual dignity " dahil ang kanila, sa kanila, ang ipinapaandar lamang nila is walang iba kungdi ang kanilang religious faith na there is " only one true God ". Ang mga religious soldier, ang trabaho lang nila is mag-hunt ng mga tao na hindi Christian. Forced conversion po ang ginawa nila. Andiyan ang torture, death penalty, tatanggalin ang ari-arian ng tao mismo kung kaya, takot ang mga tao at wala din sila abilidad na umalis sa beliefs nila.

Yan ang sinasabi ko na masyado exclusive kasi ang paniniwala nila na "there is only one true God". Pananampalataya nila yun and hindi ko masisisi sila dahil sabi ko, iba kasi ang pagka-built in ng structure ng belief system nila. In short, ang belief social system nila bilang buo is ganun lang ang pagkakagawa sa kanila.

Yung mga 3 centuries na sinasabi mo na walang army, walang violence..... may appeal siya to some people, to some people pero pagdating sa pananampalataya, ang nag-"endorse" ay state religion government na po.



Kapag sinabi "cleanup history" is halimbawa, ang 3 centuries at 1400 years na state religion power from Christianism ay kasama sa history, ang ginawa is tinanggal lang ang 1400 years history terror from the state religion power para malinis siya at walang bahid na dumi.

So ang makikita is mga standard ng historical text katulad ng 3 centuries, mga lion den..... talaga maganda siya pero ang 1400 years history ng state religion power ay nasa "archives" na kung baga mahirap hanapin at mahirap makita ng iba.

Kahit nga ang religious tolerance ay naka-archive eh. Experience ko lang. Hirap hanapin online. Sobrang hirap pero ang nagconduct ng research is atheist, buddhist, non-religious christian at ang socio-anthropologist.

Ang religious tolerance is para sa mga tao na gusto maunawaan at ma open ang mind sa other beliefs. Mahirap siya hanapin pero informative ang nakasulat.



Ah. So bale, ang gusto mo epoint out na ang state religion power from Christianism is hindi nanggaling sa kanila kung papaano nag-expand ang belief system globally bagkus, ang gusto mo epoint out is galing 3 centuries ng mga disciple noon na naka-sandal na walang army, na walang political power why na expand globally ang beliefs system sa lahat bago nagkaroon ng state religion power.

Ahhhh. Okay. Hindi kita mapipilit. Kung yun ang iyo na sinasabi na expand ang belief system globally dahil sa 3 centuries ng mga disciple na walang political power, okay fine, o siya, o sige.

Okay na rin yun. Para "malinis" dahil kapag nakatingin ang tao sa pangit like state religion power na ginawa ng Christianism is you know? Medio negative at pangit diba? So good kung doon na lang sa sinasabi na 3 centuries ng mga disciple na walang political power na sila ang nag-expand globally.​

I think this is where the misunderstanding still sits. You keep presenting it as if there are only two options. Either Christianity spread purely by peaceful appeal, or it spread purely by political power. History is not that simple. Both can be true at different stages, and that is the normal pattern for almost every major worldview in history.

What I am pointing out is the timeline problem that your explanation still does not solve. A belief system cannot become the state religion of an empire if it has not already grown large enough to matter. Empires do not choose tiny irrelevant groups as official religions. Christianity had already spread widely across the Roman world before any emperor adopted it. That growth needs an explanation on its own.

You say Christianity would only be a small minority like Taoism without state power. But for three centuries it grew without state power while facing social pressure and periodic persecution. Most movements disappear under those conditions. Christianity did the opposite. That means its appeal to ordinary people mattered. State power later accelerated spread, yes, but acceleration is not the same as origin.

Also, the idea that 1400 years of history were hidden or cleaned up is not convincing. Universities openly teach the Crusades, the Inquisition, religious wars, colonial abuses, and church political power. Those topics are not secret. They are part of mainstream history courses. Historians debate them constantly. So the idea that only the “nice parts” are visible does not really match reality.

And one more important point. Many ideologies have spread globally through empire, colonialism, or political power. This includes secular ideologies too. Power spreads ideas. That is a human pattern, not something unique to Christianity.

So the real picture is simpler. Christianity grew first through persuasion and community. Later it gained political power and sometimes misused it, like many human institutions have. Both parts belong in the story. Reducing everything to only political power still leaves the earliest growth unexplained.

 

[Asherah Goddess]

I think this is where the misunderstanding still sits. You keep presenting it as if there are only two options. Either Christianity spread purely by peaceful appeal, or it spread purely by political power. History is not that simple. Both can be true at different stages, and that is the normal pattern for almost every major worldview in history.​

Ano ang problema doon? Eh sa meron two options. " Either Christianity spread purely by peaceful appeal, or it spread purely by political power. " Bakit ba? Ang gusto mo equal or ang gusto mo kumbinsihin mo sa akin na ang Christianity na itinutukoy mo sa akin ay na spread purely by peaceful appeal ? Bakit sinasabi mo pa na "both can be true" kung alam mo naman sa sarili mo na spread ang Christianity na walang state religion power at na spread siya sa pamamagitan ng peaceful appeal.​

What I am pointing out is the timeline problem that your explanation still does not solve. A belief system cannot become the state religion of an empire if it has not already grown large enough to matter. Empires do not choose tiny irrelevant groups as official religions. Christianity had already spread widely across the Roman world before any emperor adopted it. That growth needs an explanation on its own.​

Yung 300 years or 3 centuries ba ang itinutukoy mo? Actually, nagkakaproblema ka sa timeline mismo kapag naniniwala ka na ang 300 years na itinutukoy mo ay na spread ang Christianity globally. Therefore, wala na ako magagawa diyan. Talaga magkaka-conflict ang timeline sayo versus ang timeline ko ng 300 years onwards na nagkaroon ng state religion power ang Christianity na spread out globally ang beliefs ng Christianity.

Hindi na kailangan ng explanation malamang. Sa akin, wala naman problema sa timeline dahil 300 years onward, after of course ng Christian persecution dahil îllégâl siya noon, next phase na po na nagkaroon ng state religion power ang Christian, 300 years and onward na siya.

Ngayon kung naniniwala ka na ang 300 years na spread globally ang Christianity na naka-sandal lang at nagbabahay-bahay siguro, eh questionable ang timeline sayo malamang. Hindi ko na maeexplain ang patungkol diyan.

Magiging conflict talaga siya pagdating ng timeline sayo.​

You say Christianity would only be a small minority like Taoism without state power. But for three centuries it grew without state power while facing social pressure and periodic persecution. Most movements disappear under those conditions. Christianity did the opposite. That means its appeal to ordinary people mattered. State power later accelerated spread, yes, but acceleration is not the same as origin.​

...kaya nga, yung sinasabi mo "it grew without state power" ay literally, lumaki siya at nag-expand na walang violence. Ang hindi accept sayo na ang state religion ng Christianity ang siya nag-expand ng Christian beliefs globally. Yun ang nakikita ko na dinidefend-defend mo, kaya, sabi ko nga, hindi na kita mapipilit diyan dahil naniniwala ka nga na lumaki ang Christianity without any violence at nag-grew siya dahil sa appeal ng mga tao.​

Also, the idea that 1400 years of history were hidden or cleaned up is not convincing. Universities openly teach the Crusades, the Inquisition, religious wars, colonial abuses, and church political power. Those topics are not secret. They are part of mainstream history courses. Historians debate them constantly. So the idea that only the “nice parts” are visible does not really match reality.​

Wala naman ako sinabi secret ang ganun topic. Hindi lang ipinagtutuunan ng pansin ba? Nakaka-access lang depende sa courses. Halimbawa, kapag historian or taga-law.... siyempre, kailangan eaccess po siya pero pagdating sa family, sa mga school or sa mga national bookstore, katulad naandito, ang iba ay walang nakakaalam.

Kung gusto mag-aral ng deeper like history na papaano na develop ang belief system or ano, oo pero yung mga tipong sa mga schools... hindi. Sa schools nga, hindi binubuklat ang inquistion ng mga espanyol noon unang panahon. Wala.

Yung sinakop, oo. Pero yung, inquisition, wala.​

And one more important point. Many ideologies have spread globally through empire, colonialism, or political power. This includes secular ideologies too. Power spreads ideas. That is a human pattern, not something unique to Christianity.

So the real picture is simpler. Christianity grew first through persuasion and community. Later it gained political power and sometimes misused it, like many human institutions have. Both parts belong in the story. Reducing everything to only political power still leaves the earliest growth unexplained.​

So, sabi mo nga, lumawak, lumaki, it grew first dahil na persuade po ang mga tao pagkatapos, dumating ang state religion at nag gained ng power kung saan na misused nila.

Fine.

Sabi mo eh. Sabi ko nga, hindi na kita mapipilit po.​

 

[Gildarts Tale]

Ano ang problema doon? Eh sa meron two options. " Either Christianity spread purely by peaceful appeal, or it spread purely by political power. " Bakit ba? Ang gusto mo equal or ang gusto mo kumbinsihin mo sa akin na ang Christianity na itinutukoy mo sa akin ay na spread purely by peaceful appeal ? Bakit sinasabi mo pa na "both can be true" kung alam mo naman sa sarili mo na spread ang Christianity na walang state religion power at na spread siya sa pamamagitan ng peaceful appeal.



Yung 300 years or 3 centuries ba ang itinutukoy mo? Actually, nagkakaproblema ka sa timeline mismo kapag naniniwala ka na ang 300 years na itinutukoy mo ay na spread ang Christianity globally. Therefore, wala na ako magagawa diyan. Talaga magkaka-conflict ang timeline sayo versus ang timeline ko ng 300 years onwards na nagkaroon ng state religion power ang Christianity na spread out globally ang beliefs ng Christianity.

Hindi na kailangan ng explanation malamang. Sa akin, wala naman problema sa timeline dahil 300 years onward, after of course ng Christian persecution dahil îllégâl siya noon, next phase na po na nagkaroon ng state religion power ang Christian, 300 years and onward na siya.

Ngayon kung naniniwala ka na ang 300 years na spread globally ang Christianity na naka-sandal lang at nagbabahay-bahay siguro, eh questionable ang timeline sayo malamang. Hindi ko na maeexplain ang patungkol diyan.

Magiging conflict talaga siya pagdating ng timeline sayo.



...kaya nga, yung sinasabi mo "it grew without state power" ay literally, lumaki siya at nag-expand na walang violence. Ang hindi accept sayo na ang state religion ng Christianity ang siya nag-expand ng Christian beliefs globally. Yun ang nakikita ko na dinidefend-defend mo, kaya, sabi ko nga, hindi na kita mapipilit diyan dahil naniniwala ka nga na lumaki ang Christianity without any violence at nag-grew siya dahil sa appeal ng mga tao.



Wala naman ako sinabi secret ang ganun topic. Hindi lang ipinagtutuunan ng pansin ba? Nakaka-access lang depende sa courses. Halimbawa, kapag historian or taga-law.... siyempre, kailangan eaccess po siya pero pagdating sa family, sa mga school or sa mga national bookstore, katulad naandito, ang iba ay walang nakakaalam.

Kung gusto mag-aral ng deeper like history na papaano na develop ang belief system or ano, oo pero yung mga tipong sa mga schools... hindi. Sa schools nga, hindi binubuklat ang inquistion ng mga espanyol noon unang panahon. Wala.

Yung sinakop, oo. Pero yung, inquisition, wala.



So, sabi mo nga, lumawak, lumaki, it grew first dahil na persuade po ang mga tao pagkatapos, dumating ang state religion at nag gained ng power kung saan na misused nila.

Fine.

Sabi mo eh. Sabi ko nga, hindi na kita mapipilit po.​

This is not about my opinion versus yours. This is about basic historical timeline that historians agree on.

Christianity did not become the state religion until the late 4th century. By that time it had already spread across the Roman Empire for about three centuries while it was îllégâl and often persecuted. That is not “global dominance,” but it is real growth that happened before any state power existed.

State support later helped Christianity spread faster and wider. That part is true. But saying state power is the whole explanation ignores the earlier documented growth that happened without it.

So again the point is simple. Political power helped accelerate Christianity’s spread. It did not start it. That is a historical sequence, not a personal belief.

 

[Kaplok Kaplok]

In the Roman world, the “normal” mindset accepted slavery, infanticide, brutal entertainment, and rigid class hierarchy. Those were mainstream ideas. Yet early Christians became known for rescuing abandoned infants, caring for plague victims, elevating the status of women, and teaching that even slaves and emperors were morally equal before God.

Pwede di natin sabihin na these ideas were falling out of style sa era na ito wether Christianity was around or not. Lets not forget na Old testament did support slavery, sacrifice of one's child, killing of first borns, etc.
So, toyour poont for a time, yes - Christianity did once side to people seeking liberation. But, that does not mean the it cannot have transformed into a tyrant organization just like those it help make obsolete in the past. I am not saying it is, pero if that is the case, the past does not matter diba anymore diba? Just like these tyrant organizations, they also started out good and for the people and sadly the have to be destroyed when they did not serve the people's needs anymore.

 

[Kaplok Kaplok]

So I’d say the statement is not totally wrong, but it misses the bigger historical pattern: Christianity both interacted with culture and profoundly reshaped it.

Did it reshape it? It is equally true kasi na it is more like it reshaped itself to side with liberals of those era. Unfortunately, in the present, dahil sa dominance nito, it is now the face of conservatism an and it only survives dahil secular laws allowed freedom of religion.

 

[Asherah Goddess]

This is not about my opinion versus yours. This is about basic historical timeline that historians agree on.

Christianity did not become the state religion until the late 4th century. By that time it had already spread across the Roman Empire for about three centuries while it was îllégâl and often persecuted. That is not “global dominance,” but it is real growth that happened before any state power existed.

State support later helped Christianity spread faster and wider. That part is true. But saying state power is the whole explanation ignores the earlier documented growth that happened without it.

So again the point is simple. Political power helped accelerate Christianity’s spread. It did not start it. That is a historical sequence, not a personal belief.​

Okay. Kahit ang historians ay nag-aagree.

Yung sinasabi na " ...but it is real growth that happened before any state power existed. " at " ...but saying state power is the whole explanation ignores the earlier documented growth that happened without it. " ...from Christian is ang tricky ng sinasabi na there is real growth happened.

Sa akin is vague or blur. Anong klaseng growth? Itinutukoy is growth scale ng Christianism na tipong only the minority? Or tipong ang itinutukoy is nag-expand sa lahat ng nasasakupan at dumami sila? Sabi kasi real growth that happened.

Kapag growth scale ng Christianism , mga minority lang sila. Mga 10% while ang state religion power from Christianism is 90% dahil ang state religion ang nag-endorse ng Christianity by force.

Anyway, anong itinutukoy na there is real growth happened in a Christian? Ang itinutukoy mo ba ay growth scale ng mga minority or growth scale na talaga lumawak at lumaki pagkatapos, ipinagpatuloy lang ng state religion ng Christianism?​

 

[Gildarts Tale]

Did it reshape it? It is equally true kasi na it is more like it reshaped itself to side with liberals of those era. Unfortunately, in the present, dahil sa dominance nito, it is now the face of conservatism an and it only survives dahil secular laws allowed freedom of religion.

The idea that these changes would have happened anyway without Christianity is a huge assumption. In the Greco Roman world slavery was normal everywhere. Infanticide was legal. Gladiator games were entertainment. Women had very limited legal protection. These were not trends that were slowly disappearing. They were deeply rooted for centuries. What changed history was the rise of a new moral belief that every human has equal value because they are made in the image of God.

Christians were not just blending into culture. They were often punished for opposing it. Roman writers like Tacitus and Pliny literally complained that Christians refused to abandon infants, refused to worship emperors, and kept saying slaves and masters were brothers. That was not “going with the trend.” That was disruptive.

About the Old Testament. Yes it records slavery, war, and hard laws. But describing something in an ancient society is not the same as endorsing it as a permanent ideal. The Old Testament shows a gradual moral movement. Then the New Testament takes the biggest leap by saying there is neither slave nor free, male nor female, all are one in Christ. That idea was revolutionary in the ancient world.

Now about the idea that Christianity only survives because of secular laws. Historically it is the opposite. The idea of religious freedom came from Christian thinkers who argued that faith must be freely chosen and cannot be forced by the state. That idea shaped Western law over time.

Has Christianity had bad periods? Of course. Every large human institution has failures. But the claim that it simply reshaped itself to power ignores the long pattern where Christianity challenged the powerful, protected the weak, and reshaped moral thinking about human dignity.

So yes Christianity interacted with culture. But history shows it did much more than follow trends. It changed the moral direction of entire civilizations.

 

[Gildarts Tale]

Okay. Kahit ang historians ay nag-aagree.

Yung sinasabi na " ...but it is real growth that happened before any state power existed. " at " ...but saying state power is the whole explanation ignores the earlier documented growth that happened without it. " ...from Christian is ang tricky ng sinasabi na there is real growth happened.

Sa akin is vague or blur. Anong klaseng growth? Itinutukoy is growth scale ng Christianism na tipong only the minority? Or tipong ang itinutukoy is nag-expand sa lahat ng nasasakupan at dumami sila? Sabi kasi real growth that happened.

Kapag growth scale ng Christianism , mga minority lang sila. Mga 10% while ang state religion power from Christianism is 90% dahil ang state religion ang nag-endorse ng Christianity by force.

Anyway, anong itinutukoy na there is real growth happened in a Christian? Ang itinutukoy mo ba ay growth scale ng mga minority or growth scale na talaga lumawak at lumaki pagkatapos, ipinagpatuloy lang ng state religion ng Christianism?​

When I say real growth, I am not talking about global dominance. I am talking about measurable, documented expansion before the Roman Empire ever supported Christianity.

Here are the basic historical facts most historians agree on:

First century
Christianity starts as a tiny Jewish movement around year 30 AD. Within decades there are Christian communities across Judea, Syria, Asia Minor, Greece, and Rome. The New Testament letters themselves are proof of this spread because they were written to already existing churches across the empire.

Second century
Roman writers like Pliny the Younger wrote to Emperor Trajan around year 112 AD complaining that Christians were everywhere in his province of Bithynia. He literally says temples were becoming empty and traditional sacrifices were declining because many people were converting. This was over 200 years before Christianity became the state religion.

Third century
Christianity continues to grow despite waves of persecution under emperors like Decius and Diocletian. By the early 300s, historians like Rodney Stark estimate Christians were around 10 percent of the Roman Empire. That may sound small today, but in ancient population terms that means millions of people across multiple regions. That is not a tiny isolated sect anymore. That is a massive trans regional movement.

Fourth century
Only after this long period of growth does Constantine legalize Christianity in 313 AD. And Christianity becomes the official state religion much later in 380 AD under Emperor Theodosius.

So the timeline matters.
Christianity was already widespread across the empire before any government endorsement existed. State support accelerated the spread later, yes. But the movement was already large, organized, and present across many provinces before that happened.

And we can even see a similar pattern today. Christianity still grows in places where it has no political power and sometimes even faces pressure.

China is the biggest example. The government is officially atheist and heavily regulates churches, yet many researchers say Christianity there is growing fast through house churches and underground communities. Some estimates say tens of millions of Christians now exist in China despite restrictions.

The same pattern shows up in places like Iran and parts of the Middle East where converting can bring social pressure or legal trouble, yet underground Christian communities continue to grow.

So historically and even today, Christianity does not only grow when it has state power. In many cases it grows the most where it has the least power.

 

[Asherah Goddess]

Now about the idea that Christianity only survives because of secular laws. Historically it is the opposite. The idea of religious freedom came from Christian thinkers who argued that faith must be freely chosen and cannot be forced by the state. That idea shaped Western law over time.​

Actually, those "Christian thinkers" is pinapapatay din ng state religion po ng Christianism. Lahat ng free thinkers kahit Christian pa po. Pagan, Jews, any other Christian sects, mga Arian, ibang other beliefs...... the reason for this is kailangan meron "true Christian" po. If there is one true Christian, purely Christian, the only true God na iyon lang ang 100% true and the rest is 100% wrong.... katulad lang ng modern days natin na Protestante and Jehovah, ano ang true Christian sa kanila dalawa.

Totoo galing idea ang secularism from Christian person pero kahit kapwa Christian, against sila kapag free thinkers ang isang tao po.

Noon, dati kasi, marami nag-usbungan na Christian sect which is tama ka sa 300 years na nagkaroon ng growth which is 10% lang po within 300 years pero at that time, chaotic dahil magkakaiba ang sect ng Christianity. Wala naman nagbago. Ganun talaga sila na meron silang one true God pagkatapos kung anong group na true Christian, sila lang ang true. May mga christian sect sila katulad ng "The Gnostics", "The Marcionites", "The Arians" plus mga 42 sects ng mga Christian. Hindi pa uso ang protestante, Jehovah, Mormons, ADD, Iglesia ni Cristo.... hindi pa sila existing.

Hindi pa uso ang katagang gender equality, human equality at individual dignity. Wala pa naman umuusbong na free thinkers. Wala pa.

Nang nagkaroon ng state religion ang Christianity, gusto nila na meron magtayo na "true" na lahat susundin ng mga tao. Heretics ang tingin kapag nalaman na free thinkers ang tao o iba ang paniniwala ng tao.

Parang ganito lang yan. Religious Christian versus modern Christian diba? Ika nga, ang nagpabago at nagreshaped is walang iba kungdi Christian, ang mga modern Christian dahil Christian sila na in fact, ang nagtanggal ng individual dignity at human equality is a religious Christian po.

Kung baga sa akin, ang na peperceived ko, hindi naman talaga inherit ng Christianity ang pagkakaroon ng human dignity and equality dahil originally, traceback to the religious origin as in origin, wala talaga pumapasok sa isip nila na ganun because all they care na "there is only one true God" and the "true Christian" kuno. Tipong hindi siya inherited dahil ganun ang origin ng pagka-structure po nila.

Nagkaisip at nag-usbungan ang mga free thinkers at naging secularism po na Christian dahil sa thousand years, nakatira tayo sa terror so given or hindi maaari na walang umusbong ang mga free thinkers at securlarism at kahit sila, ipinaglalaban nila para maging free ang mga tao. Christian sila pero kung hindi sa secularism, walang magbabago.

Parang ganito. Hindi ko kaya e-credit ang Christian or hindi ako fans kung baga, dahil alam ko ang religious origin ng Christian talaga na originally, wala naman kilalaman iyan sa human dignity and equality ng mga tao. Ang nagpabago lang ay ang Christian na galing secularism , galing siya sa secularist na kung hindi sa secularism, malamang , nakatira tayo sa terror. For me, I really do not care kung ang secularist is a Christian. I do not care dahil no changes at all, kung originally ang religious structure ng Christian when it comes to belief system is "there is only one true God" dahil doon lang sila nagrerely, no matter what happens. I do not care kung Christian o hindi, as long as secularists ang nagbigay ng daan na para maging free tayo, mas thankful ako na secularist ang nagreshape ng world natin.

Yung iyo, kahit galing religious origin ang Christian kung saan naghohold siya ng power sa lahat ng nasasakupan na wala naman kilalaman sa human dignity and equality basi lang sa pananampalataya na there is only one true God as long as, ang secularist is Christian at binago niya , give credit to a Christian dahil siya ang nagreshape ng mundo sapagkat Christian siya.​

 

[Asherah Goddess]

Has Christianity had bad periods? Of course. Every large human institution has failures. But the claim that it simply reshaped itself to power ignores the long pattern where Christianity challenged the powerful, protected the weak, and reshaped moral thinking about human dignity.

So yes Christianity interacted with culture. But history shows it did much more than follow trends. It changed the moral direction of entire civilizations.​

Actually, tama ka in a sense pagdating sa Christianity na kung papaano na protected ang mga weak, maawain sila, meron silang itinatawag na radical equality kung tawagin dahil binago nila ang status quo dahil nga mataas sobra ang practicality ng mga Pagano and ngayon, magpasalamat tayo dahil ang Pagan and Christian, intertwined silang dalawa from logic and being maawain. Yun nga lang, inferior ang tingin ng mga Christian sa Pagan sa contribution. Tipong walang ka-credit-credit from them.

Tama ka. Yun ang panahon ng mga disciple. Wala pa silang centralized institution, wala silang preacher.... communal lang sila. More on social network lang sila. Halimbawa, friends, ecoconvert ang friend sa Christian, then family ng friend, ecoconvert in Christian or from slaves to master, ecoconvert ang master nila..... through network lang sila. Totoo andoon ang growth as in and natutunan nila ang mga turo from Jesus Christ like nagkaroon ng equality ang master at ang slaves unlike noon, separate sila. Yung mga unfamiliar, magugulat-gulat sila na ang noblewomen at slaves is magkasabay na kumakain.

Binago nila yun, but wala silang institution kung tawagin. Yun ang 300 centuries mismo. Nagkaroon ng growth sa mismong Christianity and kahit ang mga Christian dati, dumadalo pa sa temple ng mga Jews dahil wala naman silang church, kaya nang sinira ng Roman ang temple ng Jews, kalat-kalat na po ang mga Christian, andoon ang word of mouth hanggang nagkaroon ng iba-ibang Christian sect.

Yung iba-ibang Christian sect, iba-iba na ang concept or ideal kung ano na si Jesus mismo. Isa sa mga Christian sect, gumawa ng bago sacred text about Jesus at yun na yung bible. Pagkatapos ang bible is yun ang ginamit sa state religion mismo na kung saan meron old and new testament.

Just think, yung sinasabi na galing Christian ang pagkakaroon ng individual rights and human equality mismo, nasasabi ko na wala nang kilalaman sa state of religion dahil ang religious beliefs nila is according kung ano lang nakalagay in the bible. Yun lang ang susundan nila na true. Walang pumapasok sa isip nila about equality.

Totoo ang tungkol sa 300 years na papaano nagkaroon ng growth at dahil sa growth na yun kaya nagkaroon ng different christian sect as in at hindi na malaman kung ano ang true christian, kaya pagdating sa state religion, ginawa na nilang na meron "true" sa lahat.

Actually, kung ano ang beliefs nila na only one true God according kung ano ang nakalagay sa bible, in a state religion, yun lang ang susundan nila dahil naniniwala sila na iyon ang 100% true.

Kapag aasa tayo sa 300 years, ma lolose track tayo dahil sa loob ng 300 years, nagkaroon ng growth kaya nagkaroon sila ng different christian sect at hindi na malaman kung ano ang true sa kanila.

Then the rest is history, kaya nagkaroon ng global ang Christianity sa buong mundo dahil sa state religion mismo at ang Christian na taga-secularist ang nag reshaped po mismo. Sa iba, sasabihin na Christian kasi ang free thinkers. Ang akin, I really do not care kung Christian ang secularist mismo o hindi dahil ang religion structure talaga ng una as in, ganun na talaga sila. Tipong they believe in "one true God" dahil iyon ang truth claim na meron 100% true at meron 100% wrong.​

 

[Gildarts Tale]

Actually, those "Christian thinkers" is pinapapatay din ng state religion po ng Christianism. Lahat ng free thinkers kahit Christian pa po. Pagan, Jews, any other Christian sects, mga Arian, ibang other beliefs...... the reason for this is kailangan meron "true Christian" po. If there is one true Christian, purely Christian, the only true God na iyon lang ang 100% true and the rest is 100% wrong.... katulad lang ng modern days natin na Protestante and Jehovah, ano ang true Christian sa kanila dalawa.

Totoo galing idea ang secularism from Christian person pero kahit kapwa Christian, against sila kapag free thinkers ang isang tao po.

Noon, dati kasi, marami nag-usbungan na Christian sect which is tama ka sa 300 years na nagkaroon ng growth which is 10% lang po within 300 years pero at that time, chaotic dahil magkakaiba ang sect ng Christianity. Wala naman nagbago. Ganun talaga sila na meron silang one true God pagkatapos kung anong group na true Christian, sila lang ang true. May mga christian sect sila katulad ng "The Gnostics", "The Marcionites", "The Arians" plus mga 42 sects ng mga Christian. Hindi pa uso ang protestante, Jehovah, Mormons, ADD, Iglesia ni Cristo.... hindi pa sila existing.

Hindi pa uso ang katagang gender equality, human equality at individual dignity. Wala pa naman umuusbong na free thinkers. Wala pa.

Nang nagkaroon ng state religion ang Christianity, gusto nila na meron magtayo na "true" na lahat susundin ng mga tao. Heretics ang tingin kapag nalaman na free thinkers ang tao o iba ang paniniwala ng tao.

Parang ganito lang yan. Religious Christian versus modern Christian diba? Ika nga, ang nagpabago at nagreshaped is walang iba kungdi Christian, ang mga modern Christian dahil Christian sila na in fact, ang nagtanggal ng individual dignity at human equality is a religious Christian po.

Kung baga sa akin, ang na peperceived ko, hindi naman talaga inherit ng Christianity ang pagkakaroon ng human dignity and equality dahil originally, traceback to the religious origin as in origin, wala talaga pumapasok sa isip nila na ganun because all they care na "there is only one true God" and the "true Christian" kuno. Tipong hindi siya inherited dahil ganun ang origin ng pagka-structure po nila.

Nagkaisip at nag-usbungan ang mga free thinkers at naging secularism po na Christian dahil sa thousand years, nakatira tayo sa terror so given or hindi maaari na walang umusbong ang mga free thinkers at securlarism at kahit sila, ipinaglalaban nila para maging free ang mga tao. Christian sila pero kung hindi sa secularism, walang magbabago.

Parang ganito. Hindi ko kaya e-credit ang Christian or hindi ako fans kung baga, dahil alam ko ang religious origin ng Christian talaga na originally, wala naman kilalaman iyan sa human dignity and equality ng mga tao. Ang nagpabago lang ay ang Christian na galing secularism , galing siya sa secularist na kung hindi sa secularism, malamang , nakatira tayo sa terror. For me, I really do not care kung ang secularist is a Christian. I do not care dahil no changes at all, kung originally ang religious structure ng Christian when it comes to belief system is "there is only one true God" dahil doon lang sila nagrerely, no matter what happens. I do not care kung Christian o hindi, as long as secularists ang nagbigay ng daan na para maging free tayo, mas thankful ako na secularist ang nagreshape ng world natin.

Yung iyo, kahit galing religious origin ang Christian kung saan naghohold siya ng power sa lahat ng nasasakupan na wala naman kilalaman sa human dignity and equality basi lang sa pananampalataya na there is only one true God as long as, ang secularist is Christian at binago niya , give credit to a Christian dahil siya ang nagreshape ng mundo sapagkat Christian siya.​

History is more complicated than that. Yes, Christians fought each other and sometimes persecuted dissenters. That is true. But the same historical record shows that the language of conscience, human dignity, and religious liberty was first argued in a Christian framework long before modern secularism existed.

Early Christians refused to worship the emperor and argued that faith cannot be forced. Later thinkers like Augustine, Aquinas, and many Reformers developed the idea that conscience answers to God, not the state. That idea slowly became the foundation for religious freedom. Secularism did not appear in a vacuum. It grew out of debates inside Christian civilization.

So it is not “secularism fixed Christianity.” It is that Western ideas of freedom were shaped through a long argument inside Christian history, including mistakes, conflicts, reforms, and progress. Both the failures and the contributions are part of the same story.

 

[Gildarts Tale]

Actually, tama ka in a sense pagdating sa Christianity na kung papaano na protected ang mga weak, maawain sila, meron silang itinatawag na radical equality kung tawagin dahil binago nila ang status quo dahil nga mataas sobra ang practicality ng mga Pagano and ngayon, magpasalamat tayo dahil ang Pagan and Christian, intertwined silang dalawa from logic and being maawain. Yun nga lang, inferior ang tingin ng mga Christian sa Pagan sa contribution. Tipong walang ka-credit-credit from them.

Tama ka. Yun ang panahon ng mga disciple. Wala pa silang centralized institution, wala silang preacher.... communal lang sila. More on social network lang sila. Halimbawa, friends, ecoconvert ang friend sa Christian, then family ng friend, ecoconvert in Christian or from slaves to master, ecoconvert ang master nila..... through network lang sila. Totoo andoon ang growth as in and natutunan nila ang mga turo from Jesus Christ like nagkaroon ng equality ang master at ang slaves unlike noon, separate sila. Yung mga unfamiliar, magugulat-gulat sila na ang noblewomen at slaves is magkasabay na kumakain.

Binago nila yun, but wala silang institution kung tawagin. Yun ang 300 centuries mismo. Nagkaroon ng growth sa mismong Christianity and kahit ang mga Christian dati, dumadalo pa sa temple ng mga Jews dahil wala naman silang church, kaya nang sinira ng Roman ang temple ng Jews, kalat-kalat na po ang mga Christian, andoon ang word of mouth hanggang nagkaroon ng iba-ibang Christian sect.

Yung iba-ibang Christian sect, iba-iba na ang concept or ideal kung ano na si Jesus mismo. Isa sa mga Christian sect, gumawa ng bago sacred text about Jesus at yun na yung bible. Pagkatapos ang bible is yun ang ginamit sa state religion mismo na kung saan meron old and new testament.

Just think, yung sinasabi na galing Christian ang pagkakaroon ng individual rights and human equality mismo, nasasabi ko na wala nang kilalaman sa state of religion dahil ang religious beliefs nila is according kung ano lang nakalagay in the bible. Yun lang ang susundan nila na true. Walang pumapasok sa isip nila about equality.

Totoo ang tungkol sa 300 years na papaano nagkaroon ng growth at dahil sa growth na yun kaya nagkaroon ng different christian sect as in at hindi na malaman kung ano ang true christian, kaya pagdating sa state religion, ginawa na nilang na meron "true" sa lahat.

Actually, kung ano ang beliefs nila na only one true God according kung ano ang nakalagay sa bible, in a state religion, yun lang ang susundan nila dahil naniniwala sila na iyon ang 100% true.

Kapag aasa tayo sa 300 years, ma lolose track tayo dahil sa loob ng 300 years, nagkaroon ng growth kaya nagkaroon sila ng different christian sect at hindi na malaman kung ano ang true sa kanila.

Then the rest is history, kaya nagkaroon ng global ang Christianity sa buong mundo dahil sa state religion mismo at ang Christian na taga-secularist ang nag reshaped po mismo. Sa iba, sasabihin na Christian kasi ang free thinkers. Ang akin, I really do not care kung Christian ang secularist mismo o hindi dahil ang religion structure talaga ng una as in, ganun na talaga sila. Tipong they believe in "one true God" dahil iyon ang truth claim na meron 100% true at meron 100% wrong.​

You are mixing real history with big assumptions. Yes early Christianity spread through relationships and house churches. Historians agree with that. But the claim that equality came later and not from Christian belief does not match the sources.

From the very beginning Christians were teaching ideas that were strange in the Roman world. One God for all people. Every human made in God’s image. Slave and master equal before God. Jew and Gentile one family. Those ideas existed in the New Testament centuries before Christianity had political power.

Different sects appearing does not prove the message had no core. Every growing movement produces debates and disagreements. That is normal. What matters is that the same core teachings about human dignity, charity, and moral equality kept showing up across Christian communities long before any state religion existed.

Again. State power helped spread Christianity globally. That part is true. But the moral ideas you are talking about did not start with secularism. They were already present in the earliest Christian teachings and writings.

 

[Asherah Goddess]

Tama ka naman doon sa "moral core idea" na galing sa Christianism. Tama ka. Ang itinutukoy ko, ang "institution" kasi. Noon unang panahon ng mga Christian, wala naman silang bible na pwede masunod. Hindi pa uso ang bible. Andoon nga ang "moral core idea" nila, iyon ang itinatawag na ika nga "original raw files" ng video kapag sa atin pa 'yun pero nang nagkaroon ng state religion which is galing din sa isa sa mga christian sect na sila ang may gawa ng bible, nakalimutan ko nga lang ang pangalan ng christian sect na 'yun, hindi na po na aapply ng state ang "moral code idea" na 'yun.

Kung baga, ever since, ginawa ng institutional, sinusundan nila kung ano ang nakalagay na bible mismo dahil naniniwala sila ba na meron "one true God" na existing which is 100% true and ang iba ay 100% wrong na po kapag iba ang belief system ng tao which is non-Christian at heretics naman sa mga christian thinkers or mga taga-secularists po.

Secularists ang nagkaisip, sabi mo nga, galing Christian, I do not know if they found something in the bible kung kaya, nagkaisip na it is wrong and decided na ipaglaban po.

...but at the same time, hindi mo rin masisi ang state religion, iba lang kasi siguro ang pagkakainterpret nila in the bible na in the modern days, wala din ipinagbago. Existing pa rin ang "different christian sect" kung ano ang true religion and true Christian na typical behavior na ipinagdedebate at ipinag-aawayan which ganun talaga sila from the beginning ng sina unang Christian sect ng within 300 years na nagkaroon ng growth at nagkaroon ng iba-ibang Christian sect na exclusive na there is 100% true and 100% wrong because there is only one true God. Kaya nga, nagkaroon ng state religion na iyan dahil chaotic noon ang mga Christian sect, ang gusto na meron magtatayo na "true" sa lahat with the use of weapon like state religion.​

 

[Gildarts Tale]

Tama ka naman doon sa "moral core idea" na galing sa Christianism. Tama ka. Ang itinutukoy ko, ang "institution" kasi. Noon unang panahon ng mga Christian, wala naman silang bible na pwede masunod. Hindi pa uso ang bible. Andoon nga ang "moral core idea" nila, iyon ang itinatawag na ika nga "original raw files" ng video kapag sa atin pa 'yun pero nang nagkaroon ng state religion which is galing din sa isa sa mga christian sect na sila ang may gawa ng bible, nakalimutan ko nga lang ang pangalan ng christian sect na 'yun, hindi na po na aapply ng state ang "moral code idea" na 'yun.

Kung baga, ever since, ginawa ng institutional, sinusundan nila kung ano ang nakalagay na bible mismo dahil naniniwala sila ba na meron "one true God" na existing which is 100% true and ang iba ay 100% wrong na po kapag iba ang belief system ng tao which is non-Christian at heretics naman sa mga christian thinkers or mga taga-secularists po.

Secularists ang nagkaisip, sabi mo nga, galing Christian, I do not know if they found something in the bible kung kaya, nagkaisip na it is wrong and decided na ipaglaban po.

...but at the same time, hindi mo rin masisi ang state religion, iba lang kasi siguro ang pagkakainterpret nila in the bible na in the modern days, wala din ipinagbago. Existing pa rin ang "different christian sect" kung ano ang true religion and true Christian na typical behavior na ipinagdedebate at ipinag-aawayan which ganun talaga sila from the beginning ng sina unang Christian sect ng within 300 years na nagkaroon ng growth at nagkaroon ng iba-ibang Christian sect na exclusive na there is 100% true and 100% wrong because there is only one true God. Kaya nga, nagkaroon ng state religion na iyan dahil chaotic noon ang mga Christian sect, ang gusto na meron magtatayo na "true" sa lahat with the use of weapon like state religion.​

You’re assuming the Bible came after the Church and was invented by a sect to control chaos. Historically it’s the opposite. The New Testament books were written in the first century and were already circulating and being read across Christian communities long before Christianity became a state religion. The Church did not create the message. It preserved the writings that were already widely used and recognized.

Disagreements between groups do not prove the faith was invented later. Every movement debates and clarifies its beliefs as it grows. State power later influenced politics and institutions, yes. But the core teachings and the Scriptures existed centuries before that and were not created by a government to unify sects.