History Western Civilization, Rome and Cyclical History

[Poe]

Playing Devil's advocate I could kind of see all the main denominations coming together setting up some universal guidelines for "Christianity" regardless of faith. Ie homosexuality is a sin and any church that says different isn't preaching Christ's teachings for example but leaving the individual churches to govern themselves as they see fit.

Something like that might work but it seems looser than what skallagrim seemed to be suggestion where all the churches unify into one.

I would love to see such a church but it's gonna be a hard sell. It was hard enough keeping Christians united on a single continent now the faith spans the globe.

 

[King Arts]

Playing Devil's advocate I could kind of see all the main denominations coming together setting up some universal guidelines for "Christianity" regardless of faith. Ie homosexuality is a sin and any church that says different isn't preaching Christ's teachings for example but leaving the individual churches to govern themselves as they see fit.

Something like that might work but it seems looser than what skallagrim seemed to be suggestion where all the churches unify into one.

That already happened it’s the ecumenical councils. They defined what Christianity is.

 

[S'task]

That already happened it’s the ecumenical councils. They defined what Christianity is.

I mean... these are why many Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox are all considered "Christian". There's actually a baseline set of beliefs that define it from the early ecumenical councils. Generally speaking belief in and adhering to the Nicaean and Apostles Creeds is the baseline requirements for being considered orthodox Christian (and yes, I'm aware, many progressive protestant Churches fail by this definition, this is why I said "many" not "all" Protestants), and those that do not hold to those two creeds are not considered Christians (though they will sometimes still claim to be).

 

[King Arts]

I mean... these are why many Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox are all considered "Christian". There's actually a baseline set of beliefs that define it from the early ecumenical councils. Generally speaking belief in and adhering to the Nicaean and Apostles Creeds is the baseline requirements for being considered orthodox Christian (and yes, I'm aware, many progressive protestant Churches fail by this definition, this is why I said "many" not "all" Protestants), and those that do not hold to those two creeds are not considered Christians (though they will sometimes still claim to be).

Yes which is kinda ironic when the Protestants who actually are Christian(aka they hold the the first two councils at least even if they don't officially support Church authority they still repudiate Arianism) claim they can define who is a Christian and who is not.

I mean if you hold to sola scriptura and there is no Church authority just what the Bible and what people honestly interpret it too mean, then you can justify Arianism which the early Christians have declared to be heresy. I mean Jehova's Witnesses they just have the Bible they don't add new books like the Mormons they claim to be Christian and follow Jesus and they think he isn't God.

 

[TheRomanSlayer]

Yes which is kinda ironic when the Protestants who actually are Christian(aka they hold the the first two councils at least even if they don't officially support Church authority they still repudiate Arianism) claim they can define who is a Christian and who is not.

I mean if you hold to sola scriptura and there is no Church authority just what the Bible and what people honestly interpret it too mean, then you can justify Arianism which the early Christians have declared to be heresy. I mean Jehova's Witnesses they just have the Bible they don't add new books like the Mormons they claim to be Christian and follow Jesus and they think he isn't God.

Jehovah's Witnesses have the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, plus the magazines that they often hand out at various places.

There are other kinds of strands of Christianity that would have been declared as heresy alongside Arianism, such as Marcionism and its other Gnostic offshoots too.

 

[King Arts]

Jehovah's Witnesses have the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, plus the magazines that they often hand out at various places.

There are other kinds of strands of Christianity that would have been declared as heresy alongside Arianism, such as Marcionism and its other Gnostic offshoots too.

I'm not a JW and was not raised by them or have met any so I just know what I see online.

But sure they have their own Bible translation, but well there are many Bible translations, some are good, some are bad, some are ok. It's possible that the translation is so bad that it should not be considered a Bible because it does not have the message. But well can you show that?

As for their magazines those are magazines those aren't scripture. All Church's have written things besides the Bible.

 

[TheRomanSlayer]

I actually did study with JWs at one point, but never converted mostly because I didn't want that kind of strict lifestyle. Amusingly, what snapped my mind out of the whole become a JW was my initial foray into Islam.

Those magazines aren't scriptures, but they have articles that are written that relate to real world events.

 

[Crom's Black Blade]

I mean... these are why many Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox are all considered "Christian". There's actually a baseline set of beliefs that define it from the early ecumenical councils. Generally speaking belief in and adhering to the Nicaean and Apostles Creeds is the baseline requirements for being considered orthodox Christian (and yes, I'm aware, many progressive protestant Churches fail by this definition, this is why I said "many" not "all" Protestants), and those that do not hold to those two creeds are not considered Christians (though they will sometimes still claim to be).

That already happened it’s the ecumenical councils. They defined what Christianity is.

Something along those lines was kind of what I was envisioning for a 21st century Christianity.

I'm just not sureyou could go much farther than that and actually try to unify everyone under one house without it causing more problems than it solves.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

I don’t think there is ever a timeline where you can slam the Orthodox and Roman Church back together. They’ve been split for over a thousand years, significantly developed in different ways, and don’t even use the same sodding liturgical language.

Now I can certainly see the Roman Church maintaining its position of greater reach and power over the Orthodox Church (and that may grow as time passes), especially with the coming implosion of Russia, but to my mind that just means a diminished Orthodox Church ultimately returns home to Greece.

Protties meanwhile are all over the place. There’s a shout at Anglicans being brought back into the Roman fold, but with the other branches (like the American “Jesus Concert” crowd, or the Evangelicals, both of whom make me cringe into high orbit) it just isn’t going to happen. Even with the Anglicans, there’s five hundred years of separation and even antagonism between us and Rome.

 

[DarthOne]

I don’t think there is ever a timeline where you can slam the Orthodox and Roman Church back together. They’ve been split for over a thousand years, significantly developed in different ways, and don’t even use the same sodding liturgical language.

Now I can certainly see the Roman Church maintaining its position of greater reach and power over the Orthodox Church (and that may grow as time passes), especially with the coming implosion of Russia, but to my mind that just means a diminished Orthodox Church ultimately returns home to Greece.

Protties meanwhile are all over the place. There’s a shout at Anglicans being brought back into the Roman fold, but with the other branches (like the American “Jesus Concert” crowd, or the Evangelicals, both of whom make me cringe into high orbit) it just isn’t going to happen. Even with the Anglicans, there’s five hundred years of separation and even antagonism between us and Rome.

Given how Catholicism is having its own issues, Orthodox is growing in North America and the Protestants are losing members and going woke, I think you might be off in a few places.

 

[Skallagrim]

I suppose my question is what actually happens when a church(s) says no because they lost out on dictating "correct" orthodoxy or their dicks or they prefer a seat of religion closer to home. What does "condem" them mean in practice.

Are we talking sternly worded essays or people being ostracized for religious beliefs?

I didn't say "condemn", I said "proscribe": a dooming to death or exile; outlawry; specifically, among the ancient Romans, the public offer of a reward for the head of a political enemy.

The era in which this becomes pertinent is not a time for messing around or writing sternly-worded letters. (Although there may, in fact, be some exceedingly polite letters, which graciously inform the recipient that he may now commit honourable suicide, and thereby avoid the execution of any and all relatives within the seventh degree of consanguinity with his person. That sort of thing.)

This, however, is going more into the nature and... "culture"... of an incipient universal state, rather than specific religious harmonisation policies. Regarding that matter in particular, I'll provide some elaboration below. I do stress that (as I'll detail further on) a broad tendency (and a favourable sentiment) towards harmonisation is to be expected during the age in question. While there will be resistance, the crushing of such dissent will -- I expect -- be overwhelmingly popular.

I have no idea how this is expected to work, protestantism is kind of anti-clergy or at least anti-one church hierarchy and they are the most powerful from a military and economic standpoint (unless the US somehow breaks catholic.)

Playing Devil's advocate I could kind of see all the main denominations coming together setting up some universal guidelines for "Christianity" regardless of faith. Ie homosexuality is a sin and any church that says different isn't preaching Christ's teachings for example but leaving the individual churches to govern themselves as they see fit.

Something like that might work but it seems looser than what skallagrim seemed to be suggestion where all the churches unify into one.

I would love to see such a church but it's gonna be a hard sell. It was hard enough keeping Christians united on a single continent now the faith spans the globe.

What is described above is, in practice, actually rather close to what I expect. The key difference, I think, is that I expect it to be more of a formalised process that is guided and... strongly encouraged... by the imperial authorities, and which is rather more formalised than the more organic "come together" kind of thing that Crom's Black Blade outlines. In practice, that makes no difference. It's the same kind of outcome: even if it's a very formally-structured Universal Church (which it will be!), its actual practices will allow all kind of heterodoxy on the "ground level".

Just... don't dissent from the big important points. Because if you do...

Well. This could of course go in various ways. I could see Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons getting pogrom'd out of existence for not playing along adequately. But at the same time, either or both (or any other fairly "out there" sect or denomination) could make some kind of deal, and get a place in the new hierarchy of things. That's the key to it. If's you've read Dune, you know that the governing edict of the Empire is "everything in its place, and a place for every thing". As usual, Frank Herbert cut right down to the essence of such matters. That simple phrase is the core of any universal state.

The universal state emerges from violent anarchy; from civil war, famine and despair. It rises up out of division and danger, and it promises unity and certainty. It gives safety and stability. And unlike more other governments of the preceding age, it generally leaves you alone in the day-to-day. What it expects is that where it matters... you get into line. If you make trouble, your existence is over. When the Principate arises, men will have seen enough trouble for several lifetimes, and they'll want no more of it. At least not domestically. All trouble is now to be externalised into neo-colonialism or new crusades or things of that nature.

But that strong and popular urge towards unity and harmony will make it so that the government, in most cases, will not have to fight much against dissenters. They'll have been dealt with by their angry neighbours long before they become a real problem. The main issue, in these times, is dealing with those pre-existing movements that oppose unity and harmony. Political movements will have been exhaused by that time. Literally cut up and burnt up in the civil wars. Potential trouble remains on the religious side. But to cite another example: consider how in 40K, Big E makes a deal with the Mechanicum, and both sides hold up their end.... and don't look at each other's dealings too closely. I could easily see the Mormons doing something like that, and maintain their own religious hierarchy, while paying lip service to the notion of a more universaled Ecclesiarchy.

This will no doubt be helped along by the fact that there may only be one solution to the issue of the Papacy. And that solution is Ceasaropapism. The Emperor will be the head of the Universal Church. There will no doubt by some wondrously Byzantine structure of synods and bishops and cardinals and patriarchs and all such things... by it will be the shape of a pyramid, with the Emperor at its apex.



An aside, with mentioning because the topic was brought up: there can be little doubt that Christianity extends beyond the boundaries of any Western universal state. The universal Church may be expected to encompass the Empire, but will have limited means to reach beyond it. This means that "other Christianities" will continue to exist outside the Empire. The universal Church will view these as heretics, no doubt. but regardless, they are foreign and alien. They are... "not like us".

This rather addresses the point @Poe raised, about spanning the globe. The Empire won't, and neither will its Church. So if large parts of either South America or Africa remain outside the Empire (and I believe that at least one of them will), then one or more independent Churches may flourish there.



Also something of an aside, but perhaps worth mentioning: in the more immediate future, I first expect something like the charismatic movement to be more successful. In fact, I expect the populist movement to increasingly have religious overtones, as it puts itself in existential opposition to the secularist established order.

We've already passed the apex of secularism. Religiosity is already on the rebound, globally and in the West specifically. As times get harder, this process will almost certainly accelerate. The underlying selective process will favour more 'zealous' denominations, although the too-crazy ones don't tend to provide the stability that people seek in religion (particularly in uncertain times). Which is why something like the charismatic movement appears to be on the upswing right now. It's capable of co-opting existing structures, Catholic and Protestant alike, and thus combines zeal with legitimacy... and has an institutional backdrop available.

That's a winning recipe.

Initially, and especially in an American context, this overall development will chiefly have Protestant characteristics, of course! But what I'm saying is that future "Caesarism" will very much have "Christian patriotism" as its identity, and its leader (our "Caesar") will almost be as a prophet to his followers, beyond just being their political champion. Because of the selection towards extremist denominations in times of great division and conflict within a society, this particular "brew" will become rather threatening to a lot of people once the "Caesarists" have won.

Which feeds into the general trajectory of a "Caesar" either getting martyred or becoming a widely hated tyrant.

And that's about when the civil wars get to their last and bloodiest chapter, which paves the way for an Augustus to restore order and be thanked for it. Because since the more 'zealous' religiosity is the cult of the Populares, and they initiate a great big slaughter and are central in one or more horrific civil wars, then we should expect the aftermath of those terrors to bear witness to another shift. One back to tradition. That's always the safety-net, after great upheavals. So the really zealous folks (the ones that haven't killed each other already!) get stomped into the dirt, and things get... harmonised.

That's where a Universal Church comes from. Its emergence is fed by the same social dynamics that feed the creation of a Universal Empire. From division, unity. From chaos, order. From civil war, domestic peace. From weakness, strength.



Final observation: whatever Universal Church is created during the Principate is -- by its nature -- to a significant degree an astroturfed edifice. It's not naturally grown. It's designed and imposed. Men allow it to be imposed, because it's a symbol of order and certainty (which they crave and even need at that time), but it never really stirs their passions. Or their souls, for that matter.

Which is why it will die.

Just as Christianity conquered Rome from within, a new religious tradition will spring up in our future civilisation, as if rising through the pavement from the earth beneath. And it will conquer from within. And that will be the true univeral religion that our Empire produces. It will not be the defining religion of our civilisation-- but it will be the thing we leave behind when our civilisation ends. The way Rome, in its old age, incubated Christianity... and left it to the world.

Toynbee argued that universal states, in fact, existed to produce universal religions in this fashion. I have some doubt about that degree of supposed teleological drive in the process, but the fact that universal empires do incubate universal religions can hardly be called into question. What it will be, in our case, cannot be predicted. It can be a more vitalic and organic branch of Christianity, which replaces the overly-formalised and (in the long run) calcified Universal Church. Or it can be something else entirely. We'll have to wait and see.

 

[Crom's Black Blade]

I didn't say "condemn", I said "proscribe": a dooming to death or exile; outlawry; specifically, among the ancient Romans, the public offer of a reward for the head of a political enemy.

Well I didn't mean to misquote you. I honestly felt "condemn" was a suitable synonym to what you were suggesting. I apologize for my error. Regardless, what you describe sounds a lot worse than condemn.

(Although there may, in fact, be some exceedingly polite letters, which graciously inform the recipient that he may now commit honourable suicide, and thereby avoid the execution of any and all relatives within the seventh degree of consanguinity with his person. That sort of thing.)

That's what I figured but I did want to make sure. Now I'll admit this could be a difference of politics or nationality but as an American I can't see the Universal-Church as the good guys here. It goes against everything I was raised to believe in, everything I viewed as an unalloyed good. Everything I want to believe is good.

I'm not going to get up on a high horse and claim I'd never do it. I know statistically, if we all were in Nazi Germany in 1930's, most of us would have been good little Nazi's because the price for non-conformity was too high for most individuals. So yes in some future year hence I, or my descendent, might join the mob and willingly, maybe even gleefully, wiped out the "other" but I hope, I pray, that I have the courage to stand by my convictions. That would be a better "life" than surviving as the mob.

While there will be resistance, the crushing of such dissent will -- I expect -- be overwhelmingly popular.

Having a jaundiced view of humanity I'm sure you will be absolutely right.

The key difference, I think, is that I expect it to be more of a formalised process that is guided and... strongly encouraged... by the imperial authorities, and which is rather more formalised than the more organic, even... huggy-feely.... kind of thing that Crom's Black Blade outlines.

I think that's a rather glaring difference. One is a series of different churches that have agreed, at least broadly, on central tenents but have their own unique spin and interpretations from there. What you are describing is more Catholic Church 2.0 where there is a central authority to maintain some degree of orthodoxy. That may allow for window dressing differences, those that don't conflict with the central dogma, but still subservient to this central power be it a Pope, religious council or whoever is God-Emperor that week.

So I just want, for the record, to say, in my view at least, I see the two outlines as significantly different indeed almost polar opposites world views.

And unlike more other governments of the preceding age, it generally leaves you alone in the day-to-day. What it expects is that where it matters... you get into line.

Just... don't dissent from the big important points. Because if you do...

What's "important" and what "matters" will always depend upon the power holding the reigns. Giving the temptation, and ability, for 24 surveillance, our digital lifestyle removing any concept of privacy and human nature I'm not nearly as confident you will be left alone day-to-day.

And ultimately your happiness or well-being are not a consideration anymore than farm animals have a say in how things are performed. So I could see some intrusions from forced, daily prayer services to nutritional control so that serfs don't grow too fat and lazy to be good proles. And that's assuming they even aspire to be a functional state as opposed to a North Korea police state with enough nukes to protect their sovereignty.

Far from an end to the intrusion of Government in our lives I fear this world after tomorrow will unleashed it like no other before was capable of. Something the USSR of old would have drooled over. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe pragmatism or the three legged stool of king, lords and church will prevent this. Or maybe it all ends in nuclear mushrooms and we go back to bashing texts into stone.

 

[S'task]

Protties meanwhile are all over the place. There’s a shout at Anglicans being brought back into the Roman fold, but with the other branches (like the American “Jesus Concert” crowd, or the Evangelicals, both of whom make me cringe into high orbit) it just isn’t going to happen. Even with the Anglicans, there’s five hundred years of separation and even antagonism between us and Rome.

Given that many Evangelical Churches in the US are more orthodox than the Anglicans are at this point, you really need to get off your high (Church) horse. Just because the forms are different, most major Evangelical Churches in the US have been holding out against the forces of secularism better than the ANGLICANS of all people. I'm sorry, why should I take religious advice from the Church that lost the British Isles to secularism and Islam?

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Honestly conversations like these are where I begin to hope the big one happens and everyone dies. I know that sounds cruel but good Lord humans are a... I'm not sure what you call them. Too spiritual to be considered animals but too beastial and brurish to be spiritually and rather than the two sides mixing in perfect harmony they mix like oil and water.

 

[Simonbob]

.... I think, right now, it's important to point out that as things have gone? Everything's on the downswing.

It we could have frozen our govenment expansion even 50 years ago, kept the values of 70 years ago, we would be so much happier it's insane.

This is the begining of the end. It sucks, and it's true, our current leaders are a part of it. But, it's not going to last forever.


After all, the best, most stable, way of getting followers is to make them happy to follow you. That's where we're headed, but it'll take a while.

 

[King Arts]

Well I didn't mean to misquote you. I honestly felt "condemn" was a suitable synonym to what you were suggesting. I apologize for my error. Regardless, what you describe sounds a lot worse than condemn.


That's what I figured but I did want to make sure. Now I'll admit this could be a difference of politics or nationality but as an American I can't see the Universal-Church as the good guys here. It goes against everything I was raised to believe in, everything I viewed as an unalloyed good. Everything I want to believe is good.

I'm not going to get up on a high horse and claim I'd never do it. I know statistically, if we all were in Nazi Germany in 1930's, most of us would have been good little Nazi's because the price for non-conformity was too high for most individuals. So yes in some future year hence I, or my descendent, might join the mob and willingly, maybe even gleefully, wiped out the "other" but I hope, I pray, that I have the courage to stand by my convictions. That would be a better "life" than surviving as the mob.


Having a jaundiced view of humanity I'm sure you will be absolutely right.


I think that's a rather glaring difference. One is a series of different churches that have agreed, at least broadly, on central tenents but have their own unique spin and interpretations from there. What you are describing is more Catholic Church 2.0 where there is a central authority to maintain some degree of orthodoxy. That may allow for window dressing differences, those that don't conflict with the central dogma, but still subservient to this central power be it a Pope, religious council or whoever is God-Emperor that week.

So I just want, for the record, to say, in my view at least, I see the two outlines as significantly different indeed almost polar opposites world views.



What's "important" and what "matters" will always depend upon the power holding the reigns. Giving the temptation, and ability, for 24 surveillance, our digital lifestyle removing any concept of privacy and human nature I'm not nearly as confident you will be left alone day-to-day.

And ultimately your happiness or well-being are not a consideration anymore than farm animals have a say in how things are performed. So I could see some intrusions from forced, daily prayer services to nutritional control so that serfs don't grow too fat and lazy to be good proles. And that's assuming they even aspire to be a functional state as opposed to a North Korea police state with enough nukes to protect their sovereignty.

Far from an end to the intrusion of Government in our lives I fear this world after tomorrow will unleashed it like no other before was capable of. Something the USSR of old would have drooled over. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe pragmatism or the three legged stool of king, lords and church will prevent this. Or maybe it all ends in nuclear mushrooms and we go back to bashing texts into stone.

Dude Skallgrims predictions are brain dead. America is highly unlikely to become a universal empire in the manner he imagined.

Sure there might be similarities but it won’t repeat the exact same way. The circumstances are different. Some things like the fall of the republic and rise of a principate or empire sure it’s possible. But new technology like nukes have made it so that one empire can’t just take all of western civilization under its control against everyone else. America can’t attack the UK and France without a nuclear response. Those nations have guaranteed independence.

As for religion no there won’t be a universal church the people are not spiritual enough back then people actually believed in their religion. Now it’s far less devout. Honestly it’s more likely that Islam or a new religion would copy Christianity and infiltrate this hypothetical western empire.

Hell you could argue that’s exactly what wokeism/communism is. Like Christianity converted a Rome that was no longer pagan, commies convert a west that is no longer Christian.

 

[Crom's Black Blade]

Dude Skallgrims predictions are brain dead. America is highly unlikely to become a universal empire in the manner he imagined.

Shrug. I find @Skallagrim quite informed and knowledgeable on the subject, even persuasive, and I find many of the ideas he presents quite fascinating even if I don't agree with all the details. As you say its unlikely the Augustus of our age is going to be conquering much of the West via armies but bringing them in closer due to shared cultural as well as economic ties as a counter-bloc to China/ last hurrah of an Islamic Caliphate/Unforeseen bloc isn't that far fetched either as "allies", territories or fully absorbed into the main hegemony.

My objection was more directed towards within the Universal Empire, whether it occupied a country or a hemisphere, and the morality of offering a person the choice of committing suicide or have "the execution of any and all relatives within the seventh degree of consanguinity". That skallagrim seemed to take the stance that, while no doubt regretful, is an acceptable act to move us from darkness towards the light where as I view it as the sort of draconian approach I object to the Left using to silence dissident and force homogenized "consensuses".

Part of that is of course due to our differing starting assumptions. Skallagrim, not without reason, believes authority will be reasonable come the Principality and the madness of overreach will be a shadow of our past. As such he takes the view the homogenization will be very broad with wide heterogeneous regionality allowed and thus any dissident will only be the most radical, fringed outliers that couldn't compromise with the core dogma.

I take the stance all men are tyrants if given the means and our level of technology means there is nothing beyond the Government's eye. That the God-Emperor chief deacon can watch in real time any sermon being conducted in any church, or if desired, home of the Empire to make sure it complies with accepted orthodoxy. That the entire world is essentially a village now let alone the titular Empire itself. And once you accepted the Imperial government can kill people for "praying wrong" there's no real mechanism to prevent that screw from being tightened forever shifting "radical, fringed outliers" closer towards the center much like how the Left constantly shifts what is acceptable in culture.

 

[King Arts]

Shrug. I find @Skallagrim quite informed and knowledgeable on the subject, even persuasive, and I find many of the ideas he presents quite fascinating even if I don't agree with all the details. As you say its unlikely the Augustus of our age is going to be conquering much of the West via armies but bringing them in closer due to shared cultural as well as economic ties as a counter-bloc to China/ last hurrah of an Islamic Caliphate/Unforeseen bloc isn't that far fetched either as "allies", territories or fully absorbed into the main hegemony.

My objection was more directed towards within the Universal Empire, whether it occupied a country or a hemisphere, and the morality of offering a person the choice of committing suicide or have "the execution of any and all relatives within the seventh degree of consanguinity". That skallagrim seemed to take the stance that, while no doubt regretful, is an acceptable act to move us from darkness towards the light where as I view it as the sort of draconian approach I object to the Left using to silence dissident and force homogenized "consensuses".

Part of that is of course due to our differing starting assumptions. Skallagrim, not without reason, believes authority will be reasonable come the Principality and the madness of overreach will be a shadow of our past. As such he takes the view the homogenization will be very broad with wide heterogeneous regionality allowed and thus any dissident will only be the most radical, fringed outliers that couldn't compromise with the core dogma.

I take the stance all men are tyrants if given the means and our level of technology means there is nothing beyond the Government's eye. That the God-Emperor chief deacon can watch in real time any sermon being conducted in any church, or if desired, home of the Empire to make sure it complies with accepted orthodoxy. That the entire world is essentially a village now let alone the titular Empire itself. And once you accepted the Imperial government can kill people for "praying wrong" there's no real mechanism to prevent that screw from being tightened forever shifting "radical, fringed outliers" closer towards the center much like how the Left constantly shifts what is acceptable in culture.

Again the US being the most powerful nation, and others being allies sure that's possible. Hell that was the post ww2 world already. But those allies aren't going to accept their strongest "ally" dictating their internal religious policy. Making Catholics become Protestant, or making the Eastern Orthos in Russia become Catholic won't be accepted. Those nations France, or Russia would just ally with China instead.

 

[Crom's Black Blade]

Again the US being the most powerful nation, and others being allies sure that's possible. Hell that was the post ww2 world already. But those allies aren't going to accept their strongest "ally" dictating their internal religious policy. Making Catholics become Protestant, or making the Eastern Orthos in Russia become Catholic won't be accepted. Those nations France, or Russia would just ally with China instead.

Well I was envisioning something a little further than the post WW2 scenario. More like "allies" who in exchange for the Empire's protection have to tribute X percent of military age males to train and serve beneath the Imperial banner/ food products/military equipment ect. Less NATO where its an equal agreement we'd all protect each other, at least on paper, and more "I offer security and peace, what do you offer of equal worth?".

And I would agree trying to dictate a "unified" Christianity at the barrel of a gun would be, in the long run, counter-productive and likely lead to the exact opposite effect as, as you note, countries with the power to "say no" would almost certainly start isolating their Christianity from the "universal" one leading to further fragmentation.

But even if the Imperial Church is limited to just the United States that can lead to a lot of needless suffering as people are forced to accept a one size fits all approach to Religion.

 

[Cherico]

Again the US being the most powerful nation, and others being allies sure that's possible. Hell that was the post ww2 world already. But those allies aren't going to accept their strongest "ally" dictating their internal religious policy. Making Catholics become Protestant, or making the Eastern Orthos in Russia become Catholic won't be accepted. Those nations France, or Russia would just ally with China instead.

This is true now, but imagine a population that has been dealing with ultra secular asshats fucking things up and just being massive assholes for 90 years in a row. Democracy? Democracy has been functionally dead for more then 50 years first with massive wide spread cheating and then with them going mask off and using brute force for close to 3 decades.

This finally collapses as people collectively have their fuck it moment they bring in some one to clean house and after generations of fuckery they bring in some one nasty to do it, and at that point it might be nessary that might be the only way to get this to fucking stop.

90 plus years of repressed anger hate and rage take off, because these are the people who fucked over your grandfather, father and you and now its payback time. It goes too far, and when its over all of the crazies are 6 feet under, and the survivors are just fucking tired of chaos and the people who bring it.

People at this point just want stability, they want to be left alone and want things to stop being on fire and in that environment strange shit happens.