OK, assume for this discussion that all the other major world religions we have now, we would still have, except Christianity. Christianity of course was a direct offshoot of Judaism. It is argued that without Paul it never would have spread as it did, as it was Paul who decided that Christians didn't need to follow Jewish laws of circumcision and dietary laws.

So, imagine, what would the world be like today if Christianity never spread?

There would probably not be any Islam either.

Although the main influence on Mohammed was Judaism, as practiced in M'dina and present in Mecca, there was also a Christian influence from Egypt.

Without the early proselytising of Christianity most of Britain and Northern France, for instance, would have remained under the Norse influence, but the thing that unified England was Alfred's conversion to Christianity and his wife's priests urging him to conquer the rest of England so that they could convert the heathen (code for extending their influence and wealth).

Without later persecution of Christian minorities such as the Pilgrim Fathers, William Penn and others, America would have had a completely different future. In fact the voyages of the Spanish, including that of Columbus (a Genoan), were financed by the persecution of the Jews in Spain - remember that Judaism was banned in Spain on August 2nd 1492 and Columbus sailed from Huelva the next day.

Whether we in the UK would still be worshipping Thor, Loki, Freia and so on is not forecastable, perhaps we'd've had an earlier L Ron Hubbard or similar.

Given that the discovery and development of the US would have proceeded, with only the faith missing, then what would have been the situation w.r.t. slavery? There would have been no unifying religion for the African slaves, they would have retained their own animistic tribal beliefs and would probably still be slaves.

Sounds like it could have been a very different life.

The rise of the west it seems to me was linked to Christianity. The success of the USA is rooted in cultural Calvinism. The west may not be rising anymore, but imagine today's world if that had never happened. It's the kind of question where there is no answer, I suppose. Maybe it would have been the Thai Empire, not the British Empire?

That was an interesting idea, if no Christianity, then no Islam. Of course Judaism is a tribal kind of deal, not into converting people, so it would still be very small if it existed at all, so basically with no Christianity or Islam, the Abrahamic religions/cultures wouldn't be a factor.

The rise of the west it seems to me was linked to Christianity. The success of the USA is rooted in cultural Calvinism.

this assumption is based on what facts JT?

The rise of the west it seems to me was linked to Christianity. The success of the USA is rooted in cultural Calvinism.

this assumption is based on what facts JT?

My reading of history. Facts on this thread? That's a big ask. During the Roman Empire times most of Europe really was very barbaric. So the Roman influence was huge so that without Christianity it would have evolved but somewhat differently. Not suggesting that Judeo-Christian CULTURAL influence is good or bad, just very influential. Of course there are many instances where the church has actively resisted scientific development.

An interesting question, but IMO too complicated to speculate on with any accuracy.

An interesting question, but IMO too complicated to speculate on with any accuracy.

Yeah, you're right. It might be useful for a novelist trying to come up with a hypothetical plot.

History really is mind boggling, especially the difference even one man can make that changes everything. Here I am talking about Paul, not Jesus. Jesus without the right PR and promotion would be just another Jewish messiah claimant of that era.

The west may not be rising anymore, but imagine today's world if that had never happened. It's the kind of question where there is no answer, I suppose. Maybe it would have been the Thai Empire, not the British Empire?

I think it the world would have been more primitive, like the TV show, The Game of Thrones. They had no real technological break-through to speak of for thousands of years.

The question is too complicated to speculate on, save to say that in lieu of Christianity another proselyting religion would have filled the gap, whether or not it would have had the same attributes is open to speculation.

The west may not be rising anymore, but imagine today's world if that had never happened. It's the kind of question where there is no answer, I suppose. Maybe it would have been the Thai Empire, not the British Empire?

I think it the world would have been more primitive, like the TV show, The Game of Thrones. They had no real technological break-through to speak of for thousands of years.

It may have been more advanced.

The two main Western religions - Christianity and Islam - have both been very anti-science at times, especially with regard to Darwinism. I agree that Islam (or the Arab culture) was the repository for the sciences of India and Persia in it's infancy, but this ceased a thousand years ago, when the bigots succeeded to the power base (as with Christianity in it's fourth century, at Niceaea)

At times I think that the political activity of man has had more impact on what the world is today, than the so called religions of the world. Some of the religious leaders seem to be more political in thinking/action than the religion the are susposed to the champion of.

Less wars and lessened militarism romance..

No more criticism about religion from atheists.

Edit in: Come to think about it...there would be no more atheists. They would have no reason to exist.

No more criticism about religion from atheists.

Edit in: Come to think about it...there would be no more atheists. They would have no reason to exist.

They would still exist. The op is about Christianity not spreading, not about no God.

Besides, anyone who gets so worked up over something they don't believe exists would still find something to be whiny about, God or no God.

No more criticism about religion from atheists.

Edit in: Come to think about it...there would be no more atheists. They would have no reason to exist.

They would still exist. The op is about Christianity not spreading, not about no God.

Besides, anyone who gets so worked up over something they don't believe exists would still find something to be whiny about, God or no God.

Yeah, you're right. They probably wouldn't like Zoroastrianism either.

Religion doesn't drive neither technological nor economic progress,

but can and have been counter-productive. (Christianity forbid lending out money for interest, -enter the hatred & dependance on jews)

OTOH lawlessness would likely be higher, since presumably you'll burn if you commit crime,

but hopefully get 3some in eternity if you've been a saint. Islam takes this one step further.

One thing is fact: Christian fanaticism triggered the Muslim fanaticism,

who up-til the crusades were tolerant & calm in comparison.

One thing is fact: Christian fanaticism triggered the Muslim fanaticism,

who up-til the crusades were tolerant & calm in comparison.

Not true.

Although the invasion of Spain eventually produced the Caliphate around Cordoba and Granada that was tolerant, the Bani Hillel who swept from the Arabian peninsula across North Africa used a convert-or-die method of proselytation and through the Persian empire the Muslim expansion was basically a slave-making conquest, where they cut down all trees, destroyed most buildings and slaughtered most of the population.

Only after the initial expansion was brought to a halt did the arts and sciences of the Persians and Indians come to the fore, being melded with the Arab culture to preserve and expand human knowledge, which was basically lost in Europe.

Edit: here is a simple, unbiased history of Islam

http://www.answering-islam.org/Nehls/tt1/tt3.html

The Arab culture indeed preserved much of the knowledge of Persian and Indian science, and indeed of the classical world (the biggest single destruction of classical culture was by the Frankish sack of Constantinople in 1204 or thereabouts).

Islam is theoretically a peaceful religion (like Christianity), though in both cases much is left to be desired.

But the topic? "Stop the world! I want to get off!" Just about as realistic.

Islam is theoretically a peaceful religion (like Christianity), though in both cases much is left to be desired.

The first war involving Muslims was the ambush (led by Mohammed) of trade caravans going to M'dina, very early in the religion. The targets were Jewish-owned caravans, based in M'dina.

With all the disruption and power-grabs that ensued after Mohammed and his appointed successors were dead (Ali and Hussein) I could not say that the true believers were themselves peaceful, although the words left behind by the prophet may have implied - in places - that a peaceful life would be the way to Paradise. Excepting of course the shortcut through killing opponents in a Jihad.

Islam is theoretically a peaceful religion (like Christianity), though in both cases much is left to be desired.

The first war involving Muslims was the ambush (led by Mohammed) of trade caravans going to M'dina, very early in the religion. The targets were Jewish-owned caravans, based in M'dina.

With all the disruption and power-grabs that ensued after Mohammed and his appointed successors were dead (Ali and Hussein) I could not say that the true believers were themselves peaceful, although the words left behind by the prophet may have implied - in places - that a peaceful life would be the way to Paradise. Excepting of course the shortcut through killing opponents in a Jihad.

Raiding of neighbouring tribes or passing caravans was fairly standard practice among Arabs before and during Muhammad's time. I doubt the Muslims would raid caravans coming to Medina. That would be fouling one's own nest. They would be much more likely to raid caravans going to or from Mecca. They would be bigger, hence more spoils, but would presumably be better defended. I also suspect there was not much loss of life from raiding; more likely some negotiated extortion. It really was very common practice. The killing of Muslims and their enemies occurred in pitched battles, such as the Battles of Badr and Uhud during the prophet's lifetime.

Battles won and teritory gained by Muhammad's successors, especially Umar/Omar, were aided, from memory, by the fact that the Sassanians were in decline and weak, and the Byzantines were despised by their largely Monophysite subjects in the region. The Muslim conquests were met with generally feeble opposition. That must have encouraged them to go further. It also kept restless Muslim tribesmen busy on foreign ventures instead of making trouble close to home. The early Muslims were not averse to attacking each other. In fact, Aisha, Muhammad's youngest and favourite wife, went into battle against Ali at the battle of the Camel. Her two close confidants were killed and she was sent home by Ali with her tail between her legs. They were interesting times.

Islam is theoretically a peaceful religion (like Christianity), though in both cases much is left to be desired.

The first war involving Muslims was the ambush (led by Mohammed) of trade caravans going to M'dina, very early in the religion. The targets were Jewish-owned caravans, based in M'dina.

With all the disruption and power-grabs that ensued after Mohammed and his appointed successors were dead (Ali and Hussein) I could not say that the true believers were themselves peaceful, although the words left behind by the prophet may have implied - in places - that a peaceful life would be the way to Paradise. Excepting of course the shortcut through killing opponents in a Jihad.

Raiding of neighbouring tribes or passing caravans was fairly standard practice among Arabs before and during Muhammad's time. I doubt the Muslims would raid caravans coming to Medina. That would be fouling one's own nest. They would be much more likely to raid caravans going to or from Mecca. They would be bigger, hence more spoils, but would presumably be better defended. I also suspect there was not much loss of life from raiding; more likely some negotiated extortion. It really was very common practice. The killing of Muslims and their enemies occurred in pitched battles, such as the Battles of Badr and Uhud during the prophet's lifetime.

Battles won and teritory gained by Muhammad's successors, especially Umar/Omar, were aided, from memory, by the fact that the Sassanians were in decline and weak, and the Byzantines were despised by their largely Monophysite subjects in the region. The Muslim conquests were met with generally feeble opposition. That must have encouraged them to go further. It also kept restless Muslim tribesmen busy on foreign ventures instead of making trouble close to home. The early Muslims were not averse to attacking each other. In fact, Aisha, Muhammad's youngest and favourite wife, went into battle against Ali at the battle of the Camel. Her two close confidants were killed and she was sent home by Ali with her tail between her legs. They were interesting times.

The early Muslims were not averse to attacking each other.

Apparently neither are the modern variety.

Raiding of neighbouring tribes or passing caravans was fairly standard practice among Arabs before and during Muhammad's time. I doubt the Muslims would raid caravans coming to Medina. That would be fouling one's own nest. They would be much more likely to raid caravans going to or from Mecca. They would be bigger, hence more spoils, but would presumably be better defended. I also suspect there was not much loss of life from raiding; more likely some negotiated extortion. It really was very common practice. The killing of Muslims and their enemies occurred in pitched battles, such as the Battles of Badr and Uhud during the prophet's lifetime.

Quick quote on the battle of Badr :

In Medina the warring Arab tribes submitted to Mohammed leadership and prophet-hood. The Jewish tribes rejected his claims of prophet and ridiculed his revelations. With most of the new arrivals from Mecca without work they needed to earn a living. Ghazu or caravan raiding was a way tribes would prevent one tribe from becoming to powerful. The Muslims in Medina began to rob the caravans heading toward Mecca. This is where the Muslim doctrine of Jihad was created.

With their caravan business being threatened, Mecca responds with one thousand solders at the battle of Bedr in March 624 the Muslims fielded 300 warriors. The battle went to the Muslims. Mohammed proclaimed his victory was a sign from Allah and his status in Medina was magnified. The lack of enthusiasm by one of the Jewish tribes caused them to be expelled by the victorious Muslim army. The direction of prayer was also changed from Jerusalem to Mecca as the Jews rejected Mohammad’s prophet-hood.

Edit: source http://www.truthnet.org/islam/whatisislam.html

Raiding of neighbouring tribes or passing caravans was fairly standard practice among Arabs before and during Muhammad's time. I doubt the Muslims would raid caravans coming to Medina. That would be fouling one's own nest. They would be much more likely to raid caravans going to or from Mecca. They would be bigger, hence more spoils, but would presumably be better defended. I also suspect there was not much loss of life from raiding; more likely some negotiated extortion. It really was very common practice. The killing of Muslims and their enemies occurred in pitched battles, such as the Battles of Badr and Uhud during the prophet's lifetime.

Quick quote on the battle of Badr :

In Medina the warring Arab tribes submitted to Mohammed leadership and prophet-hood. The Jewish tribes rejected his claims of prophet and ridiculed his revelations. With most of the new arrivals from Mecca without work they needed to earn a living. Ghazu or caravan raiding was a way tribes would prevent one tribe from becoming to powerful. The Muslims in Medina began to rob the caravans heading toward Mecca. This is where the Muslim doctrine of Jihad was created.

With their caravan business being threatened, Mecca responds with one thousand solders at the battle of Bedr in March 624 the Muslims fielded 300 warriors. The battle went to the Muslims. Mohammed proclaimed his victory was a sign from Allah and his status in Medina was magnified. The lack of enthusiasm by one of the Jewish tribes caused them to be expelled by the victorious Muslim army. The direction of prayer was also changed from Jerusalem to Mecca as the Jews rejected Mohammad’s prophet-hood.

Edit: source http://www.truthnet....hatisislam.html

Thanks Humph.

Yes, relations with the Jewish tribes in Medina were rocky, and the Jews, probably feeling they were caught between a rock and a hard place, were sometimes disloyal to Muhammad, or at least suspect. One one occasion this disloyalty resulted in the execution of all the men in the tribe. Accountability was taken seriously in those days.

I am just wondering if anybody else has ever been to the grave site of the mother of Mohammed the Prophet?

Some Bedouins took me to her grave site on a mountain top located in the desert between Mecca and Medina many years ago.

Now back on topic.

I am just wondering if anybody else has ever been to the grave site of the mother of Mohammed the Prophet?

Some Bedouins took me to her grave site on a mountain top located in the desert between Mecca and Medina many years ago.

Now back on topic.

How was it marked? Any kind of memorial? Large? Small? Souvenir vendors?

I am just wondering if anybody else has ever been to the grave site of the mother of Mohammed the Prophet?

Some Bedouins took me to her grave site on a mountain top located in the desert between Mecca and Medina many years ago.

Now back on topic.

How was it marked? Any kind of memorial? Large? Small? Souvenir vendors?

Nope, nothing like that. The top of the mountain had been flattened off and a wall of rocks perhaps two feet high had been placed around the perimeter. It was maybe fifteen miles off the Jeddah-Medina highway in the middle of nowhere and this mountain about 150 meters high was rising out of the desert.

Not even any T-shirt vendors.

PS: OK, it wasn't exactly K-2 but we still called it a mountain.