Our History
Christianity began in the Roman Empire. Two thousand years later, we inhabit a global pluralist society including Christians, adherents of Eastern religions and secularists.
The Technic History
In the Terran Empire, Axor seeks the Universal Incarnation. Thousands of years later, mankind occupies several spiral arms of the galaxy. The little that we see looks secularist. However, Christianity and other religions might survive in the various human civilizations.
Events in first century Jerusalem are also important in Anderson's There Will Be Time and "Star of the Sea" (Time Patrol).
23 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I too have read Fr. Brown's AN INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. It's well worth reading despite my strong skepticism for things like the Q hypothesis and Markan Priority, which he somewhat cautiously accepted. An esp. interesting part was Fr. Brown's gently scathing discussion of the "Jesus Seminar."
I don't believe we now inhabit "a global pluralist society." What * I * see are contending powers struggling for regional and global hegemony. And resenting how the US stands in the way of their ambitions. And too many in the US seem unable to grasp that!
I might have argued with Fr. Axor that the Universal Incarnation has already occurred on Earth, with the Incarnation and Birth of Christ during Augustus' reign.
We might have seen more about religion if Anderson had written more stories set in the post-Imperial era.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Is the US one of the contending powers struggling for hegemony?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
No, ever since 1945 the US has been the hegemon of Western civilization, trying to maintain (along with its real allies, like the UK) what I might call a "classical liberal" international order. Briefly: free trade, mutual defense against common enemies (first the USSR and now China), the rule of law, etc. Analogous to the situation faced by the Terran Empire vis a vis Merseia.
Unfortunately, too many in the US are blunderers like Lord Hauksberg or dunderheads like "Josip"!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But "common enemies" means other powers trying to extend their economic range and political influence just as the US does. Sure, they're not democratic but I am not too impressed with any existing democratic process. How much is an election result votes and how much is it just money?
Paul.
To say that we are not contending but that we have enemies is contradictory!
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, the US has to contend with a hostile China which has global, even EXTRA-global ambitions, to say nothing of the challenges posed by Russia, Iran, N Korea, etc. Do you really want the world to be dominated by China, with its brutal, kleptocratic, Marxist-Maoist regime?
I am not that hung up merely on forms and processes. What matters, to me, is whether a state, whatever its form, is accepted as legitimate by its people and at least tries not to govern too terribly badly. That said, recall what Churchill said about democracy and other forms of governing!
And I'm not sure how to understand your last comment. I am saying the US has enemies and that in governing circles don't want to face up to that.
Ad astra! Sean
Damn, I meant to write "...in governing circles TOO MANY don't want to face up to that."
Sean
Sean,
Russia has enemies! Apparently, Putin feels encircled by NATO which was supposed to have disbanded after the Cold War but obviously I do not agree with anything that Putin does and I hope I don't have to say that.
I don't want the world to be dominated by anyone, certainly not by China, certainly not by the US.
Paul.
If the US has enemies, then it is a contending power.
Sean,
We have been using the word, "enemy," in different senses. By "an enemy of the US," I mean: "someone who is in conflict with the US." You, I think, mean: "someone who is hostile to the US for no reason whatsoever." Another mis-communication.
Hostility always has some reason, whether or not we agree that the reason is reasonable. President Bush Jr. said that the US was attacked because it was a beacon of hope and freedom. No, it was attacked because it was perceived, rightly or wrongly, as a perpetrator of injustice. We have to understand other people's motivations before we can hope to respond to them appropriately.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
We can agree with almost nothing that bungling thug, Putin, says!
Don't worry, SOMEBODY, like it or not, is going to dominate the world. I would far rather the dominators were halfway tolerably decent types. That means either the US (and its allies) or vastly nastier regimes coming out on top. And I know which one I prefer!
Yes, the US is contending to preserve the post-WW II status quo it set up. Are there any REALISTICALLY likely better alternatives? I don't think so!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
There will always be resistance to any power dominating the world. That is increasing now with global economic and ecological crises. Are any armed forces or intelligence services tolerably decent? There is much testimony that they are not.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, UNTIL one power eliminates its rivals and becomes master of the world. Which is what I think will happen in the next century.
ALL states have blood on their hands. That will remain an inevitable consequence simply from ACTING in this messy real world.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We do not want or need a master of the world.
I think that either civilization will destroy itself if it continues as it is (increasingly likely) or a better way will have to be found with "masters" relegated to what will then be regarded as the Dark Ages.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Does not matter what we like or want. EVERYTHING I have seen in history and how real people behave convinces me SOMEBODY is going to dominate the world. If we are lucky he won't be any worse than Napoleon was.
I believe in realism not Utopianism.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
So you think it unlikely that even the American form of democracy will be preserved?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I hope it does, but I don't claim it will. IOW, I don't know.
Even Napoleon, for all his cynicism, went thru some of the forms and pretenses of democracy.
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Paul!
Alternately to the harsher scenario I suggested above, something like the Solar Commonwealth of Anderson's Technic history, which arose some time after "The Saturn Game," might come to pass. But, as we were warned in THE EARTH BOOK, the story of how the Commonwealth came to exist was long and terrible. IOW, we have to think there were chaos and more wars before an alliance of civilized nations enforced the Commonwealth on the entire planet. It might even have been an alliance led by the US!
Ad astra! Sean
We also must not forget the imminent irreversible ecological catastrophe.
Kaor, Paul!
And it does not seem at all likely that any of the solutions * I * believe would actually work will be implemented in time to matter a darn.
Ad astra! Sean
Christianity's early course was determined by the events in the Roman Empire, not merely the fact of the Empire's existence.
Eg., the 'crisis of the 3rd century' in the Empire broadly discredited the official 'mix' of various polytheisms.
People were more inclined to turn to an otherworldly religion when the world was visibly screwed up.
Harry Turtledove did an interesting alternate history, GUNPOWDER EMPIRE, in which Marcus Agrippa, Octavian/Augustus' right-hand man, did not predecease Augustus; thus he's around to handle Germany, and there's no 'Varus disaster' of 9 AD. Germany is permanently incorporated into the Empire, as Gaul was.
The result is that the Empire never actually falls; 2000 years later, it's still ruling Europe and North Africa and most of the Middle East. There have been periods of weakness, but political unity is always restored ultimately -- rather like China.
Christianity exists, in various forms, but it never becomes predominant. The mainstream religion is an eclectic mix, rather like Hinduism in many respects.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree, historical events AFFECTED how Christianity developed. But, since I do believe in its supernatural origins, I am not quite so confident it would have developed as seen in Turtledove's book.
Yes, I can see how the Anarchy of AD 235-84 might end with many subjects of the Empire becoming disenchanted with Greco-Roman polytheism.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment