Comments by "Ikenga Spirit" (@ikengaspirit3063) on "Knowledgia" channel.

@manrahman6661 Translating God in a local term isn't something unique to the Dutch, the Catholics already translated God to Nzambi in KiKongo and the English call God, "God" instead of Latin Deus or Iu. "Allah just happens to be the most popular terms to indonesians for a supreme god by the time they got there.
37
"The Dutch, English and French colonizers did not place much emphasis on religion" Did not place any emphasis on religion, especially during the second era of colonization. If anything, they directly tried to stiffle the spread of Christianity. Let me start with the Dutch, they made it illegal to learn to read Dutch, that's is why Afrikaans was first written by coloureds not in the Latin alphabeth but in an Ajami, while the British spread Muslim instutitions throughout the middle belt region of their colony of Northern Nigeria. This is because they considered Muslims more civilized(in the words of lord lugard, more like the english) than Pagans and Recent Christians, the Dutch similarly used Islamic Malay elite as a secondary colonizing class, similarly with the french with some Muslim Lebanese in West African colonies like the Ivory coast, and I have already mentioned the British doing that with Northern Nigerian Muslims(they did it with Indians in East Africa, part of the reason for the hate for Indians there during decolonization). Now, both states still had churches within and those tried to spread their missions, which they did allow but also tended to resist or at least give no greater support. For example, the Brits only allowed 1 mission to enter northern Nigeria.
24
@leonardoleo5740 Conversion to Catholicism in like Congo isn't really tied to French government, same with India in relaation to Britain but is instead tied to autonomous church missionaries. Remember France didn't start its whole people can't even wear religious iconography in work today, its been the dominant mood in french institutions since the revolution. The secular French state was never gonna promote Catholicism as a good unto itself like Spain might.
17
@mung1233 While Islam was present, especially among elites in Western and Central Indonesia, it certainly wasn't entrenched when the dutch first arrived.
12
"there weren't much missionaries there to spread Christianity" Okay, this part is wrong. There were Christian missionaries but spread by the church not the state (Even in Eastern Rome and the West, missionaries were sent by the church not the state but there was at least some ultimate state backing), Christians even translated more of their texts into Chinese earlier than the Buddhists. (Getting this from the lost history of Christianity book).
10
@mohammed44_ ?? Being able to preach your religion and convince people is not freedom of religion? 😂😂😂
8
@recoil53 Why are your corrections so much worse misinformation than what you claim you are correcting?. The Church of the East did spread Across Asia with known dioceses in Tibet, India, China and the steppes. The Mongolic tribe that ruled the Eastern steppe before the Kamag Mongol(so Ghengis Khan's Olus) were Church of the East Christians. And no, the Germanic tribes did not destroy Roman Knowledge because the ones that conquered Spain and Italy, where much of that knowledge was took over fairly peacefully as feodorati of the Empire. The Start of the Reinasance or "proto-Reinaisance" preceded the fall of Constantinople and the knowledge that was passed on to Western Europe was passed by other Christians. When that is taken into account, very, very few ancient manuscripts are actually only preserved in the Muslim world and even there, largely by Christians working under Muslim employ.
7
Soon after the fall of Rome, the West came to be ruled by Pagans(Angles, Franks) and Unitarian Monotheists(Spain, Italy, Africa) and before that, Christianity was the official religion for less than a century, during a time of crisis. For comparison, Buddhism was the state religion of India for 2 centuries under the Mauryas, even through a period of golden age but that after the Mauryas vanished, Buddhism was slowly undone by Hinduism.
7
No, that's American Protestant Propaganda.
7
"the more benefits they get out of the colonizers" What benefits from "colonizers"? The Portuguese were not a colonizing power in Japan and if you are just substituting colonizer for European, okay, what benefits could Portugal give some low class Japanese not in their colony?.
6
The phillippines isn't exactly "asian". As in it is Asian but it wasn't part of any of the major Asian cultural spheres and Sinic and Indic influences were almost as foreign as anything Christian.
5
@DeathDealerX07 Like, Rome made Christianity the official religion in 380 and then fell less than a century later. Then everything North of the Pyrenes, Alps and Hemus is conquered by Pagan Angles, Franks and Slavs. Like, Maurya Empire was a Buddhist Empire that controlled India for longer but couldn't break the stranglehold of Hinduism and there's other examples, so less than 100 years of Roman Christianity doesn't explain it. So, you have to look to the institutional advantages that Christianity had over Paganism. And Roman control over Judea made it easier for Christianity to spread sure but Christians were in Aksum and India by the first century and by the 6th - 7th century were in Tibet and China. Roman control made it easier but with or without them it would have spread through the common/natural avenues of trade of the known world.
5
@williamrobert9898 The majority religion and the religion of those that carried out the attacks on Christians would be what's represented and that's exactly what we see. Following Turkic and Later Mongol Persecutions, Islam became dominant, while Buddhism(in like Afghanistan), Zoroastrianism and Christianity declined. Upon Timur and his ilk killing off like over 75% of near eastern christians, there were still up to 20% of the population of the near east by late ottoman times, How much higher could that be if they weren't involved?. Certainly we'll have Christian populations up to 10% in even central Asia and up to 30% or more in the Near East.
4
@williamrobert9898 Well Timur and Islam became dominant in areas where Chistianity could be competition, so Central Asia. Well, aside from Eastern Mongolia(or Mongolia in general?) that's where Buddhism won out but I specified Eastern because the stronghold of Christianity in the Eastern steppe (so, greater mongolia) was in the West, which was also affected to some extent by stuff people like Timur was doing in Central Asia.
4
I mean, sure Rome helped but remember that by the time Rome fell, everything north of the alps and pyrannees was conquered by Pagan Franks and Angles. I think it is more the lack of similarly organized religions while Asia had several from Zoroastrianism, Islam, the Dharmic and the Chinese religions.
4
@recoil53 I didn't say the Arabs didn't translate texts I said texts that survived only becayse of the Arabs are few. Christian Europe, both the West and Byzantium also translated and copied texts with the Arab versions not the only survivals. 2. That most of those translations, especially under the Caliphate, was done by Christians within the Caliphate not Muslims. "Yes Christianity spread east. but never in big numbers" I mean, what you mean by big here? By total number it rivaled the Orthodox and Catholic world up till the end of the middle ages. Sure, entire ethnic groups were rarely converted but converting 20% to 50% of dozens of ethnic groups, across all of Asia amounts to Millions of people. And they certainly did convert over half of certain ethnic groups. The Kaerites, Onguts, Naimans among other Turko-Mongol tribes were identified as Christian.
3
@mohammed44_ "I mean come on, they should've wait to make enough christians before starting a civil war!" The Shimabara rebellion was not a civil war, it was a peasant revolt that started cuz a better but incidentally Christian daymo was replaced with a despotic one. It isn't even control more than one entire prefecture of Japan. As for "they did fight along with the christian minority against japan." The Portuguese were not involved in the Shimabara rebellion, they were dealing with wars like the wars of portuguese succession and the dutch grand design during that period. The only Christian power involved, the Dutch fought on the side of the Japanese government against the rebels.
3
Okay, no the Crusades weren't devastating to Levantine Christiandom, at least not in the way you describe. Masscares weren't common especially not after the 1st Crusade and people keep repeating it like it was all repeatation of the massacre of Jerusalem everywhere, every few decades.
3
@mvalthegamer2450 You know, I am not too into Buddhism so I don't know exactly how similar it is to Hinduism but I have come across enough Hindus and Buddhists online to know that many of them don't consider the differences trivial even if some Hindus do consider it trivial. So let me use another example. The USSR lasted about 70 years and Christianity was the religion of Western Rome for about 90 years. The USSR being a modern state had far more effective means to impliment its ideology on every level of society, far less than a classical state had with Pagan generals still operating under Honorius, essentially the penultimate Roman Emperor. Upon this, Russia is still majority Russian Orthodox, talkless of other religious denominations and runs a despotic capitalism like the Tzars before did. If Christianity succeeded in Europe just due to Roman state power, Communism as an ideology should be even more successful in Russia, which it isn't.
2
@ysbrandd And much of Asia was also tolerant of different religions but didn't convert over time and Assyrian Christian missionaries certainly provided other benefits in textual work, trade, medicine and glass working but weren't successful there.
2
@recoil53 The House of Wisdom may had had alot of books but very few of those books are the single source of our modern classics sample. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2fNMavJoxw&t=740s
1
@raycdo2012 Nah, its because they're sure a variant of Catholicism is the truth.
1
@justdont2378 Give name of study that says there's older fossils in Asia so we can confirm.
1
@justdont2378 Yeah, Youtube deleted it. Just tell me the name of the article.
1
@thhseeking You're really stretching the bottom of the barell here to make this claim. What Asians did representatives of American "manifest destiny" convert?. Perry certainly didn't convert any Japanese to Christianity.
1
@Bronxguyanese The French also did oppose Catholicism in their colonies, which is why upon Catholics being in fairly high places in the Vietnamese government, they still opposed French colonization and pushed for independence because the French, didn't favour Catholics in any meaningful way.
1
@moeenuddin6467 Only because theyre were More Muslims in the Areas Timur conquered. Timur explicitly targetted the small Christian minority killing a larger proportion of the Christian population in the middle east, than he killed the propotion of the muslim population, by far.
1
 @moeenuddin6467 His Empire started in and was based in Central Asia but stretched to the Aegean, to India to Iraq. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qe5t_qDlcyM
1
@mvalthegamer2450 "The Roman elite still held power in the barbarian kingdoms of Western Europe" Kingdoms that regularly persecuted catholics, whenever they had a sufficient issue with Eastern Rome. I won't call being open to random persecution, holding power. "Also, the peasantry of the West were pretty thoroughly Christianized by the time the Empire fell, so most invaders just converted to legitimize themselves" Thoroughly Christianized in less than a century of Christianity's legalization?. Like USSR with greater powers to impliment its ideology couldn't completely communitize and unchristianize Russia for the over 70 years of control, Christianity was similarly a bit over 70 years the legal religion and with far less ability to impliment itself(cuz medieval and earlier states have far less power to impliment themselves), so how could Roman state policy alone explain how they were so christianized?.
1