Apech

I think you could answer that question in a number of ways - I don't think there was one simple reason, either over time or at all. It is true in a Machiavellian sense that any power cannot tolerate a rival 'castle' or power structure to stand. This is just basic power dynamics which you can see in all areas of life. Also despite St. Paul saying 'there is no Greek or Jew ...' etc , tolerance was never really a Christian virtue - although these days they pretend that it is. They are confused about what tolerance might mean. But I would say this true of all religions, that behind the outer smiling face there is a belief that 'we are right and you are wrong'. There were also, for the Church, and especially the early church some important doctrinal issues around Christology (mostly) - in other words 'who was Jesus and what was his nature'. Was he God? Was he human - or some other interpretation. That's mostly what the heresies are about. It is not really possible for a Church which regards itself to be universal and 'catholic' i.e. for everyone to accept that there are other possible interpretations than their own. They held, they thought, the one true apostolic succession (a lineage if you like) directly from Jesus and Peter. And so the preservation of this was (to them) necessary to the salvation of the faithful and ultimately to what would be at the end of times (which was in some periods thought to be imminent) . As they are essentially dualists, they believe that there is a Devil as well as a God who works in the world to 'tempt' and draw people into wrong ways. If you sincerely believe that the Devil or evil is an active force in the world and a constant danger it would not take much to convince you to take arms against it. From the Dark Ages on, there was also a tension between who held true power, was it the spiritual leader, the Pope or was it the True Christian King - the Holy Roman Emperor. Was it the spiritual or the secular power who would hold sway? In selling Christianity to the Germanic tribes the type of Jesus as a warrior with sword in hand had been developed. The truth being like a sharp sword distinguishing truth from lies and falsehood. Along with this comes the Chivalric tradition of Arthurian myth and so on. I think you are right that the accumulation of wealth was also a motive. And wealth in those days was largely counted in land possession and martial power. Things changed noticeably when we entered the mercantile era of early stage capitalism and this coincided with the rise of Protestantism and the splintering of the Church in the West into many churches. In some ways it was this perhaps that broke the Catholic Church as much as rebellious princes (e.g. Henry VIII). Some ideas I hope - if not a complete picture

As I mentioned above they deliberately destroyed the Druid sancturies and sacred groves in Britain and elsewhere. I think for them it was more about political authority and rival power than anything to do with the actual religion. For instance Octavian (Augustus) subjugated Egypt but did not destroy the culture/religion. Pagan thought persisted to more or less the fall of the Western Roman Empire (eg. Proclus) - the growth and gradual supremacy of the Christian church through the 'dark ages' is quite a complicated story. One important factor was the Frankish adoption of Catholicism over other forms of heretic Christianity (eg. Arianism) and that the Frankish Kings especially of course Charlemagne became defenders of the faith and Holy Roman Emperors because apart from anything they had success against the Caliphate spreading up through Spain. I would say that this period Charlemagne and what happened after his death shaped European History ever since - and with it the domination of Catholicism up till the reformation (and beyond). It's a big story and a fascinating one.

This is a long thread now with some very long posts. I have scanned most of it but not read in detail - just because of time constraints and my weak powers of concentration (sometimes). A couple of things. It was the Romans who crucified Jesus - and crucifixion was their choice of punishment usually for slaves. So I don't blame them Jews! He was after all Jewish himself. Also long before the Christians tried to wipe out pagans - the Romans were already wiping out pagans. They destroyed the culture of the Celts in France and invaded Britain and destroyed the sacred groves in Anglesey where the Druids trained. Later of course the Romans became Christians - hence the RC church. So it is possible that the 'attitude' of wiping out other religions was more Roman than Christian. Also - and I don't know if it makes much difference but much of the witch trials were carried out by Protestants in the 16/17 th Centuries and not so much the Roman Catholics. In fact the approach of the Catholic church was mostly assimilation. Old pagan sites used for specific purposes were just renamed for a Christian saint and carried on much the same. There is much evidence of this in Egypt - where it is more the case that the traditional Egyptian religion had run out of steam. What I was really asking in the OP was why particularly Christianity makes a huge appeal to belief right up front so to speak. Whereas Buddhism for instance tries to convince you through reasoning and so on. Anyway just some thoughts.

Sorry I was just being ironic for Columbus Day

Everything was lovely till the Christians turned up:

Read Tacitus - the Romans did a lot of that (burning sacred groves and so on).

I can’t find the reference but some suggest that meek in this context refers to someone who has the power to react but refuses to use it. Like perhaps self restrained or something like that.

I think meek has a specific meaning which you might like to look up.

You wait and wait at a succubus stop then three come at once.

Congratulations that is supremely bonkers.

The more you sit and forget the better. Welcome to the site.

Who put the Dan in the Nei Nei Dan, who put the shen in the shen shen di woop?

Have you seen the price of copper wire?

Has anyone read this text (I am thinking of the one published by Golden Elixir Press trans. Fabrizio Pregadio)? And more importantly has anyone used it as a basis for practice?

Have a look here: https://www.goldenelixir.com/goldenelixir_press.html

I am no expert but would recommend reading the Cantong qi as the first historical Neidan text and Wang Mu for the steps in the process.

You have likes?

NO! It isn’t!

Was it - mo pai broke my Dan tien?

Naked tai chi - it must be a thing - I’ll check google.

Do your worst!

Tai chi is the most fun you can have in pajamas.

Good but no downvote.

Vegan women with cats have no steak in their future.