Carl Farness watches a hologram recording of himself as the Wanderer in dialogue with the Arian Christian missionary, Ulfilas:
"I saw men of mine nodding thoughtfully. Arianism better fitted their traditions and temperament than did a Catholicism of which they had no knowledge anyway. It would be the form of Christianity that all Goths finally took; and from this would spring centuries of trouble." (p.404)
Why should Arianism suit the Goths better than Trinitarianism? And what trouble? As far as I can see from Wikipedia, the two forms of Christianity coexisted like modern denominations for a while until Arianism died out.
The main issue for readers of time travel fiction is that history might have gone differently. Familiar forms of Christianity might have been replaced by something entirely different. The next time you hear an Evangelical street preacher, imagine his multiple analogues in alternative histories.
4 comments:
"Why should Arianism suit the Goths better than Trinitarianism?"
I don't know about that, but
"And what trouble?"
As I read the history the fact that Trinitarianism came to dominate the Roman Empire, meant that when various Germanic tribes conquered parts of the empire, the religious difference between the new rulers & the subjects led to the rulers being less accepted than rulers following Trinitarianism. This was an advantage for the Franks who did follow Trinitarianism.
To be more specific, the Franks converted directly to Catholicism.
"And what trouble?"
Oh, lots and lots of trouble.
Remember, the concept of religious pluralism was -utterly- alien to all early Christians.
(It was associated with late-Classical Paganism and they regarded it with horror.)
Salvation required a comprehensively precise set of beliefs; any deviation was inspired by Satan and led straight to eternity in the fiery Pit.
Therefore enforcing correct doctrine (after the adoption of Christianity as the Imperial State religion) was a basic moral duty -- people exposed to 'corrupt' teaching were in danger of eternal torment in Hell.
If you didn't 'rescue' them from that, you were complicit in their damnation and might well share it.
So rulers who had a different take on Christianity (and Arianism, as taught in that period, -was- radically different; basically it denied the divinity of Christ) were -worse- than pagans. They were totally illegitimate; and they reciprocated that attitude.
One of the hardest things to do in considering history is to appreciate the radically different way people saw the world and their place in it back then, particularly in periods like that.
In some respects, they're closer to the mentality of a follower of ISIS than to most of us.
"In some respects, they're closer to the mentality of a follower of ISIS than to most of us."
I read a book "The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World", which starts with a depiction of Christian in the post Constantine Empire destroying a pagan temple. This is deliberately shown as parallel to the Taliban destroying the Buddhas of Bamiyan.
Jim: related religions and attitudes.
Post a Comment