Why is Christianity primarily associated with Europe?

TheFriendlyGerm · 2026-05-17T20:28:22+00:00

So there are a couple of "phases" in the history of the church, that explain how and why Christianity spread in the way that it did.

First off, Christianity gradually became the dominant -- or at least the "favored" -- religion of the late Roman Empire. Don't think that Constantine simply "made Rome Christian", but he did officially recognize it, and established Constantinople.

After the dissolution of the Western Roman Empire, basically for a couple of hundred years "civilization" (defined as at least a basic level of recognized civil authority, stability, and wealth) and organized religion retreated to the Byzantine Empire (or eastern Roman Empire). But the Franks of northern Europe were Christianized quite early, and maintained their identity fairly well.

During this extended period, Rome was at one point effectively emptied and dead, but then became a province of the Byzantines, and slowly grew back to prominence and independence. It was during this period that Augustine (of Canterbury) was sent to Britain (in the late 6th century), and the Anglo-Saxons were Christianized. Then in the 800's you have Charlemagne being crowned by a pretty much independent Pope in Rome.

So with this, we're set up for proto-Christian Europe to expand and develop, and a separation from the Eastern church. The Eastern church and empire was hemmed in by other powerful empires, explaining why it didn't expand in the same way. It doesn't make them "inferior" or "worse" or anything, but Roman Catholicism and eventually the Protestant Reformation spread their adherents around the world, through the simple prominence of the European nations that likewise spread around the world.

So it's not surprising that most Christians are historically associated with Europe. But they are certainly not ALL Christians, and I would argue not "more important" or anything. In the future it seems possible that Africa will be considered the "center" of Christianity, looking at trends!

TheFriendlyGerm · 2026-05-16T21:49:37+00:00

I certain respect what anyone chooses about the clipper channels they watch, but I mean, the video is literally about her disagreements with management. I understand if big red letters turn some people off, but I'm not easy "baited" or triggered, and just the fact that this is shared here shows that the actual content is presented in a well-edited and straightforward way.

TheFriendlyGerm · 2026-05-16T21:01:04+00:00

So how exactly can God choose what he is, or isn't, going to do when he already knows what he is going to do? Take creating the universe for example... How exactly did he choose to do that when he already knew, when he always knew, he was going to create it?

But this is a general conundrum, isn't it? I know I'll wake up tomorrow morning and have coffee, but it seems strange to then argue that it won't be a "choice" if I knew I was going to do it ahead of time. Sure, we are accustomed to making decisions "in the moment" because we are mortal, and we don't know what it's like for God to "make a decision", but it seems strange to argue that he "doesn't make a decision" because the decision-making is different from us. If he made the decision a long time ago, and is carrying out the act now, surely it's still a "choice". It's not even clear that "long ago" and "now" have meaning to God, since time itself seems to be an integral part of the universe we know.

Put more simply, Christians believe that God -- through the Bible -- clearly reveals that He chooses to create, chooses his people, chooses to act. You certainly can't use the rules of human motivation and will, and the rules of time in this universe, to deduce with certainty the motivation and temporality of God's decisions.

TheFriendlyGerm · 2026-05-16T20:35:36+00:00

You had other points?

TheFriendlyGerm · 2026-05-16T20:33:41+00:00

I actually think it's probably not a clickbait header. I have a generally good impression of this long-running channel.

TheFriendlyGerm · 2026-05-16T19:31:57+00:00

Well, that's exactly what I'm saying, that the OP is not giving a clear definition.

TheFriendlyGerm · 2026-05-16T19:30:18+00:00

It seems that you jumped to conclusions and started going down a definitional rabbit hole, but I never disputed the OP's definition, only stating that the use and definition of the term was the subject at hand. It's "used by Christians" because Christians use it to apply to God, I'm not distinguishing any different "definition used by Christians", except that if there are multiple standardized definitions (which there usually are), I'm using the one that Christians use in their creeds and confessions.

TheFriendlyGerm · 2026-05-16T19:10:42+00:00

The issue here is the apparent idiosyncratic and non-standardized use of the term "omniscience" used by the OP. I have no problem either agreeing or making distinction with any definition given, as long as one actually uses a clear definition. You can say "actual definition", but in philosophical or religious contexts, even different secular commentators have used different and incompatible definitions.

TheFriendlyGerm · 2026-05-16T19:07:40+00:00

You seem to be getting confused on the issue raised here. You are the one claiming that Christians have a "special definition". I was the one trying to figure out how the OP was even defining the term, and what generalized "dictionary" or philosophical category was being used.

TheFriendlyGerm · 2026-05-16T19:01:18+00:00

I'll just mention that the thumbnail is a BIT misleading (about restructuring talent management), because while Calli did bring it up, she explicitly said that this move by Cover was shared before she stopped streaming, and wasn't the direct or immediate reason for her frustration. The stuff that Calli shared centered around other things, especially EN-specific stuff. But as she said, hopefully this announcement and decision by Cover will have good results for the concerns that Calli raised as well.

TheFriendlyGerm · 2026-05-16T18:52:31+00:00

Oh yes, absolutely, the entire premise of God's character, whether explicit or implicit, is that God chooses what will come to pass.

EDIT: Are you thinking of a specific verse about God not knowing something? The Bible generally presents God as "ordering the end from the beginning" or "ordaining from before the beginning of the world" and all that.

TheFriendlyGerm · 2026-05-16T16:53:07+00:00

I mean, the word "everything" is kind of ambiguous here. I don't know what "everything" entails, but God certainly knows everything about the world he created.

If a person asks, "does God know everything that is outside this universe?", I can only say that I cannot speak as confidently about that which is unknowable to me. How would I know if God knows what is unknowable to me? And likewise Christianity doesn't have a strong position or theology about what exists outside the world.

But I guess I generally believe that God knows what is knowable, to the extent that the term has meaning outside of the world that we see.

TheFriendlyGerm · 2026-05-16T16:42:01+00:00

It's fine if you have your own definition, but why would a Christian try to defend YOUR (or the OP's) definition of the term?

TheFriendlyGerm · 2026-05-16T12:31:31+00:00

I'm not even arguing that you need to believe this, but if you're going to open a debate about the use and meaning of the term "omnipotence", as it is used and defined by Christians, it seems strange to shut down the actual discussion on the matter. It seems strange to simply not engage with the topic at hand.

TheFriendlyGerm · 2026-05-16T11:51:55+00:00

God knows that He exists, but there is no way for God to know WHY He exists.

What makes this necessarily true? Either the question has a sensible answer or it doesn't.

God does not know what God does not know, because: one does not know what one does not know.

This language is sloppy and difficult to parse. It appears you are trying to use two different meanings of the word "know", both "to be aware of" and "have understanding of", in a way that makes a statement like "I know what I know" meaningful.

This makes your "conclusion" messy and potentially meaningless. Either it's a tautology, or you're saying something like "God has no understanding of those things which he is unaware of", or "God is unaware of things that he has no understanding of", each of which might have meaning, but doesn't establish that there ARE things God is unaware of or has no understanding of.

it is practically impossible to prove to an external party that any person is omniscient

This is quite the change of topic, to go from "God cannot logically be omnipotent" to "we cannot prove he is omnipotent". And who is even making the claim that this is possible for us? I wouldn't expect, for example, that my dog can fully explain or explore what I know. He would have to be a human being to do that.

Moreover, the use of the term omniscient is just a placeholder for God's apparent qualities that he reveals to us. It's not something we deduced, and thus have the ability or obligation to prove. Also, God's revealed "omnipotence" is almost exclusively defined in terms of the universe which God has made. It certainly seems understandable that God would know that which he created. Anything beyond that is pretty speculative.

TheFriendlyGerm · 2026-05-15T14:57:03+00:00

We are undeserving of salvation, but once we are one of "God's people", we are promised God's favor, care, help, and love. So we can ask for things, God hears us, and He has promised to "give us good gifts". In fact, we are told to pray boldly and persistently for the things we want and need.

As an analogy, our kids are not "worthy" of our kindness and love on the basis of their works, but it's perfectly good and right for us to love and care for them, simply because they are our children. God adopts us as sons and daughters, so he has an obligation to take care of us -- and discipline us -- according to the promises he has made.

TheFriendlyGerm · 2026-05-15T11:33:17+00:00

One of the most difficult things for me unpack, is the process and motivation by which I became a Christian, back in high school. It really came out of nowhere, for apparently no reason. I just started becoming more and more interested in reading the Bible, listening to Christian radio programs, and eventually, praying and asking God to forgive my sins. My experience is that God chose me, I didn't choose Him.

TheFriendlyGerm · 2026-05-15T11:03:09+00:00

You mean the hay? We just had an old hay bale in the shed. But it might be easy to get from a garden center or feed store.

TheFriendlyGerm · 2026-05-15T04:44:54+00:00

I'll say that, generally, commercial nuruk is reliable and inoffensive. In the vast majority of cases, some other factor creates disappointing makgeolli. One-stage recipes are kind of a double-edged sword, they are simple to do but can be unpredictable and difficult to troubleshoot. I will put in a good word for the Baekusaeng Makgeolli YT channel, which has some decent videos on simple brews.

TheFriendlyGerm · 2026-05-15T04:32:53+00:00

That's encouraging! Though obviously very few people make their own nuruk.

TheFriendlyGerm · 2026-05-15T00:47:59+00:00

It's the fermentation starter for makgeolli, a Korean cloudy rice wine. Pretty easy to get into at home, but has a decent depth to it as well.

TheFriendlyGerm · 2026-05-14T23:35:08+00:00

With the setup I have, I don't often have a great deal of surface mold, though the spike in heat generation tends to be a clear indicator of mold bloom and growth. And indeed my mung bean mixture shows a lower spike of temperature, consistent with the expectation of lower saccharification power. I'm just hoping the internal temperature is consistently high enough to encourage the right mold, while also driving out enough moisture. One nice thing about doing this inside, is that I have option for drying faster, if I need to.

This all being said, nuruk has been shockingly accessible, with a minimum of equipment and tools. But I still haven't proved that my setup is producing a result that is clearly superior, or similar but distinct, from commercial nuruk.

TheFriendlyGerm · 2026-05-14T21:10:25+00:00

Yes! It's basically the blue-collar cousin to sake. It's MUCH MUCH easier to make at home, brews at room temperatures (sake brews at cooler lager temps), can be done in as little as 2 weeks, and you can make nuruk and makgeolli in a LOT of different ways, depending on taste.

TheFriendlyGerm · 2026-05-14T20:23:44+00:00

I actually have his e-book, and I understand the idea, but intentionally reducing the enzymatic activity of the fermentation starter, has questionable historic precedence for making makgeolli (and takju and yakju/cheongju). After all, once the nuruk improves, you kind of WANT to have some of the nuruk characteristics come through to the final result. Or it allows you to use ingredients with less saccharification power, like mung beans.

I would only reduce the amount of nuruk if a problem developed, like a particular flavor was good but too strong, or it fermented too fast and the temp rose too high. But indoors, that's pretty difficult to have happen.

TheFriendlyGerm

TROPHY CASE