Actually, the Christian takeover of Europe was often by convincing the leaders of the presumed One True Religion; they would then persecute anyone who would not go along with that. And they were not above such sacrileges as cutting down a tree in Saxony revered as the world-axis tree.

Of course, they also had less violent tactics, such as turning pagan deities into Christian saints and appropriating pagan holy places.

Also, one ought to consider the rise of Islam and Buddhism.

A Muslim apologist would ask how a religion revealed to a trader in some out-of-the-way desert place could have become a major world religion.

A Buddhist apologist would ask how a religion founded by the wayward son of some king could have become a major world religion.

LOL! We'll see, but very funny in any event. Darn pesky persistent thing though, isn't it? (Belief that is)

That is a good point, and helps to explain the attractiveness of religion in general, but certainly not the success of Christianity in particular. This is especially puzzling when we consider that Christianity DID expect everyone to forsake all other gods. That had to dampen enthusiasm for it wouldn't you think? I mean, isn't tolerance a virtue, especially since the Romans seemed to be so big on it during their first few hunderd years or so? That's one of the things that seemed to make Rome so successful, that it was so cosmopolitan and accepting of other religions.

Like I said, isn't this at least a little odd to the average atheist out there?

Nomad

Can you provide actual references to back you up on your theory here lpetrich? I would like to read them.

Agreed, Christianity borrowed from a good many pagan traditions. I think this may the best explanation of the lot so far as naturalistic explanations for the success of Christianity are concerned. But it does strike me as inadequate.

As for your questions about Islam and Buddhism succeeding, I think that they are good ones. I have never seen a good response to Baalthazaq on this point BTW, that Mohammed was illiterate and lacked the gifts to spread his faith. Does anyone have any good explanations? I have always believed that military conquest was the big factor in converting people to Islam, and I haven't got a clue as to why Buddhism swept away the older religions of China (but not India where it started interestingly).

Peace,

Nomad

Yeah, right. Go ahead, Loren. Do lots of research work for Nomad. While he provides no references to back up his assertion that:

Actually, I can do this, so if you or anyone can produce contrary evidence then I would like to see it. In the meantime, and supports at all for any of the claims made by atheists on this thread would be welcome. I do think the examination of supporting evidence is important, so I hope some of you will oblige my curiosity.

Peace,

Nomad

Nomad said:
"Like I said, isn't this at least a little odd to the average atheist out there"

Yeah somewhat, from Paul up to Constantine, but I still wonder if there would be Christianity today if it wasn't picked as the 'official' state religion then enforced as such.
On a completely different note, know any good sources that explain what was actually involved in a typical Christian service from the first or second century? always was curious about what the early church was like.

Oh! Now you tell me. I thought Christian history included its successes in Europe as well as its failures in China, India and elsewhere. I see now what you're saying. You limit it to the area where it was actually successful, and then say: explain this amazing success! One could just as well point to China and say: Explain this amazing failure!

Who said anything about it being a good or bad thing? What does that have to do with the topic at hand? Like I always said, when you are beaten, you veer into condescension hoping nobody will notice you didn't actually respond. So how do you deal with the god-kings of Scandanavia, and the claim that Merovingians are descended from Jesus? Looks like even in Europe you haven't a case. There ARE some god-descended European potentates. But your buddy John's claim was "no ruler" not "no European ruler."

Robson should have been clear, you are right.
But he wasn't, was he. I can't help it if he is ethnocentric and you are insufficiently grounded in a comparative perspective to avoid nodding dully at each of his sweeping nonsensical statements.

His point about a lack of armies won't hold either. I refer you to the Reconquista in Spain, and the wars against the Turks, and the Albigensian Crusade, and Charles Martel and various other parties.

Steady, Nomad. I responded to Robson's points in his own terms. If you want to claim some special amazing attraction for Christianity, your theory has to account for its spectacular failure in other cultures where Christians lacked the power to put the infidels to the sword.

I do wish you could actually read. In the other thread I noted that Christianity's success in Europe could be accounted for by mundane and complex reasons. This is also true of its failures.

Yes, a non-theistic approach to reality has been an utter failure in western science. I feel like an intellectual dwarf using antibiotics, compared to the giants who cure their children by praying or by rubbing cow shit in their wounds, like the thiestic Africans I knew. I can't believe those idiotic oil companies, who use nontheistic science to find oil, when they could be using creationist geology and locating it so much easier. And I don't know how I missed the overwhelming success of troops like the Mahdi's army and the Maji-maji revolt against modern, scientifically-equipped armies.

I honestly liked you better when you were teaching me about papyrii in an area where you actually knew something, instead of posting somebody else's ethnocentric garbage.

Michael

You can? Then produce your evidence that

Christianity succeeded largely without the benefit of state support and conquoring armies?

"...deal with the god-kings of Scandanavia, and the claim that Merovingians are descended from Jesus?"

Not sure if this is a good example, the Merovingians that is, don't they believe that Jesus did not die on the cross & went on to Europe with his wife Mary & kids in tow? I don't believe they consider Jesus God, but a great teacher who preached a leader must serve his people, the whole 'Grail' thing, Just a legend anyway, but they were pure monotheists, no triune for them, weren't they also perseuted as heretics by the Church of Rome?.