[Me:]
Mr. Carrier, however, provides actual *evidence*, such as what people would do to try to stop eclipses.

[Nomad:]
And so what? Does that make these people a bunch of kooky ignorant rabble? That is my whole point. The environment in which Christianity arose was identical to that within which every other religion of the time competed, and Christianity emerged triumphant within the entire Roman world, and the rest of Europe without the benefit of military conquest. This is historically unprecedented, and that has been my point all along.

[Me:]
As to being unprecedented, it was only unprecedented in being exceptionally aggressive. True, it had been persecuted off-and-on in its early centuries, but those persecutions were peanuts compared to what would happen after it became the official state religion of the Empire, when it would be the Christians doing the persecuting. There weren't any fights between (say) the devotees of Isis and Mithra comparable to the homoousia-homoiousia controversy.

[Nomad:]
... The difference with Christianity, of course, is that it outlived the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, and every other empire and country that has risen and fallen in the last 2000 years. This too is historically unprecedented.

[Me:]
Christianity being unchanging? Good Grief!!!

...and also that early Christian theologians had believed that pagan miracles were real.

[Nomad:]
And yet another so what question. If miracles happen, then the supernatural exists, and God would not be the only source of such miracles.

[Me:]
That does not seem to me like a serious exercise of critical thinking. Some pagans had done better than that, such as Hippocrates saying that epilepsy was called "the disease of the gods" because nobody really knows what causes it. And one historian who was very skeptical of reports of bleeding statues.

... It has a simple meaning: how credulous does he think that people back then *really* had been?

[Nomad:]
No more credulous than people are today. Credulity is not a function of education alone. Highly educated people today still believe in things like luck and fate, and even mediums, ESP and alien abductions. Heck, I'm willing to bet that some people actually believe in an uncaused universe.

[Me:]
Which is completely consistent with what Mr. Carrier describes. And I must say that I don't see how the hypothesis of an uncaused universe belongs in the realm of kookdom.

[Nomad:]
Do you think that Richard Carrier was betraying his prejudices by referring to the ancients as "uneducated rabble", "hicks", "peasants living in a cultural back water"?

[Me:]
I will concede that that may have been excessively condescending.

[Nomad:]
Since I think that Muslims worship the same God as I do, I think that they may well be receiving help from that same God.

[Me:]
The Koran, however, is full of heresies :-)

[Nomad:]
Buddhism is more of a philosophy than a religion, and so far as I am aware, is perfectly at home with even atheists practicing it. Since it offers no challenges to its followers (beyond being a good person, and teaching them that nothing is real), it cannot provoke any kind of a hostile response against it.

[Me:]
A misunderstanding of Buddhism. It has split into numerous sects, some with an abundance of theological and superstitious elements that have little to do with the Buddha's original teachings.

... In effect, Christianity is a cult of the Only God, which makes Christianity essentially atheism to other religions.

[Nomad:]
If you define "cult" as a religion that lasts 2000 years and outlives every culture within which it exists, then this sounds fine with me. On the other hand, we haven't seen that kind of achievement by any other cult you have offered us as a comparison. In fact, quite the opposite. It looks like the vast majority of them are quite dead.

[Me:]
Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism have had similar longevity.

[Nomad:]
Islam mimicking Christianity? It may have followed a similar historical trajectory, but it was clearly an independent invention; the writers of the various Muslim scriptures (Koran, Hadiths, etc.) had had only limited contact with Christianity.

Islam teaches that Jesus was born of a virgin (their supporting stories are much stranger than Christianity's on this point BTW), and that He was one of the great prophets of God. They accept the Book of Genesis as being Scripture. They also accept that Jesus gave books that were Scriptural as well. I would recommend that you speak with Baalthazaq on these questions. He can help you a great deal.

[Me:]
However, the Koran also teaches that Jesus Christ had not really been crucified, that some sort of fake had been crucified instead, a view held by the Docetic sect.

And your proof beyond mere assertion is...? Come on lpetrich. You have blabbered this kind of nonsense at us for several posts now. Pull out your evidence.

I keep looking, and looking, and all I see is nothing but your braying mantras. I am sure you know what proofs and evidence are. Offer them. (Hint, the post right above yours has a bunch of documentation on the level of persecution of the Christians. Offer us something that shows that Carey and Scullard got it wrong, or show us evidence that the Christians were worse).

I am glad that you understand that. Thank you.

Well, since you never identified which miracles you were talking about, we are right back at the so what stage. If some future generation finds out you believed something incredible and wrong, should they toss out every single belief you ever held?

Only one?

Yeah, I didn't think you would. Like I said, credulity runs long and deep, and ironically enough, the credulous never even realize how bad they have it.

"May have been" is a nice qualifier. On the other hand, I understand how hard it is to criticize one's heroes.

So?

Of course it does, and Buddhism also allows atheists to remain Buddhists. That was my point.

Define cult. For all I know you definition is so broad you are right.

So all religions are cults? Again, if that is the definition you wish to go with, then you are right. It is not very helpful to define everything as the same thing however, especially if you want to examine them.

Like I said before, so what? Christianity has put up with lots of heresies. Even a heresy (like Islam or Doceticism) can contain elements of truth. They may even be more right than my concept of Christianity. What I would not do, out of hand (as you have) is claim that all of them are wrong, especially when you clearly know jack squat about most of them).

Nomad

P.S. I have finished replying to your unsupported assertions now lpetrich. Either you start putting up something to actually prove or at least offer evidence for your assertions, or we are done. Based on your history on these boards, I am not optimistic here, but I will watch to see if you come up with anything. My last post is a very good place to begin. Just prove that the authors were wrong.

[Me on Christianity:]
As to being unprecedented, it was only unprecedented in being exceptionally aggressive.

[Nomad:]
And your proof beyond mere assertion is...? Come on lpetrich. You have blabbered this kind of nonsense at us for several posts now. Pull out your evidence.

[Me:]
Most other sects weren't as zealous in seeking converts, and the Christian Church acted as a pressure group, as historian Gibbon has noted. Most other sects did not quite have that sort of pressure group behind them.

[Nomad:]
I keep looking, and looking, and all I see is nothing but your braying mantras. I am sure you know what proofs and evidence are. Offer them. (Hint, the post right above yours has a bunch of documentation on the level of persecution of the Christians. Offer us something that shows that Carey and Scullard got it wrong, or show us evidence that the Christians were worse).

[Me:]
I'm not claiming that Carey and Scullard are necessarily wrong -- in fact, they paint a picture of off-and-on persecution. Look at history after the Christian Church got itself declared the official and only religion of the Empire. Consider the suppression of such Christian sects as Gnosticism, and consider the vicious disputes over such issues as whether the Son is subordinate to the Father or co-equal, and whether they have the same essence (homoousia) or similar essences (homoiousia). One never saw such vicious disputes over (say) which love affairs Zeus had had.

...Christianity being unchanging? Good Grief!!!

[Nomad:]
I am glad that you understand that. Thank you.

[Me:]
How do I supposedly understand that? I was marveling at that bizarre assertion.

[Nomad:]
Do you think that Richard Carrier was betraying his prejudices by referring to the ancients as "uneducated rabble", "hicks", "peasants living in a cultural back water"?

[Me:]
I will concede that that may have been excessively condescending.

[Nomad:]
"May have been" is a nice qualifier. On the other hand, I understand how hard it is to criticize one's heroes.

[Me:]
I've found it hard to find anything to disagree with in Mr. Carrier's work except for his skepticism about the Big Bang theory.

[Nomad on Buddhism as a philosophy...]
[Me:]
A misunderstanding of Buddhism. It has split into numerous sects, some with an abundance of theological and superstitious elements that have little to do with the Buddha's original teachings.

[Nomad:]
Of course it does, and Buddhism also allows atheists to remain Buddhists. That was my point.

[Me:]
Which proves what?

[Nomad on the Koran asserting the virgin birth of Jesus Christ...]
[Me:]
However, the Koran also teaches that Jesus Christ had not really been crucified, that some sort of fake had been crucified instead, a view held by the Docetic sect.

[Nomad:]
Like I said before, so what? Christianity has put up with lots of heresies. Even a heresy (like Islam or Doceticism) can contain elements of truth. They may even be more right than my concept of Christianity. What I would not do, out of hand (as you have) is claim that all of them are wrong, especially when you clearly know jack squat about most of them).

[Me:]
Being reluctant to criticize your heroes, I see.

So once again we venture into the lpetrich zone in which facts, assertions, proofs and evidence are constantly mixed up. Let's see what we have here.

So QUOTE FROM GIBBON! Sheesh lpetrich. I do not expect to do your work for you, you know. What we have right now is your assertions about what Gibbon might have said about a vague subject relating to possible persecutions of cults by other cults compared to Christians. And out of curiosity, do you have anything to back you up that was actually written in THIS century?

...that shows that Christianity was never officially tolerated, and thousands died at the hands of the government and the mobs... see how much better you feel when you paint the full picture?

Then LET'S look at it! Once again. Right now you are running around and around telling us nothing outside of your opinions lpetrich. I am trying to be patient with you. I even warned you in my last post that I was not optimistic that you can offer actual proofs and evidence, and you are not doing anything to change my mind. Show us that you are relaying more than just stuff you heard somewhere from someone about something bad about those nasty Christians. Surely there must be SOMETHING out there that supports you. Show us what you've got.

What bizarre assertion?

So you now agree that these people were a bunch of uneducated rabble living in a backwater hick part of the Empire? Could you please make up your mind?

That it's kind of hard for atheists to get all uppity and excited about fighting against a "religion" that lets them in AND yet still be atheists. To be honest, I've never met an atheist that was ever angry at Buddhism. Have you?

Which heroes are those? Try to stay focused and coherent please. These discussions with you are trying enough as it is lpetrich. Once again I am going to insist you start putting your evidence where your cyber-mouth is. Show us what you've got.

Nomad

[A lot of Nomad's foaming at the mouth deleted...]

[Nomad:]
Of course it does, and Buddhism also allows atheists to remain Buddhists. That was my point.

[Me:]
Which proves what?

[Nomad:]
That it's kind of hard for atheists to get all uppity and excited about fighting against a "religion" that lets them in AND yet still be atheists. To be honest, I've never met an atheist that was ever angry at Buddhism. Have you?

[Me:]
The same reason that most atheists are not angry at neo-paganism -- because Buddhists tend to not be jerks about their religion and how it is the One True Faith.

And Nomad is clearly using "atheist" the same way that Alexander of Abonutichus had -- as a dirty word. A of A had lumped together atheists, Christians, and Epicureans, company that I'm sure that Nomad would enjoy :-).

Hi folks! This is becoming fun. Let's go lpetrich hunting shall we?

Translation, that pesky Nomad keeps demanding evidence, and I just don't have anything to offer.

Well, I don't know that I necessarily have the One True Faith(TM) either. Glad to see you will now drop the ridiculous asserions against Christians now. (To clarify, don't paint all Christians with one brush).

Not at all. Although none of "my best friends happen to be atheists" (an all time favorite line I often hear from the most rabid atheists regarding their Christian friends), I happen to like a respect a number of them, even on these boards.

But as for the ones that are clueless, or bigotted, or can't offer a single proof for any of their beliefs, well, yes, I confess, I do get tired of having to listen to them.

Well, since I never met an Epicurean I never liked (as in, I've never met any at all), I don't see the problem here either.

Now, offer some proofs to support your claims on this thread lpetrich. I'm sure even the lurkers are getting a bit tired of your dancing (as enjoyable as it has been to watch to this point).

Nomad

Here is some information from "The Oxford History of Medieval Europe":

(On Christianity)

"Among the many reasons for its success were its possession of an effective organization centered on bishops ('overseers') based on the cities, and the breadth of its appeal. By taking over the vocabulary and many of the spiritual and ethical preoccupations of Greek philosophical thought, it attracted intellectuals impressed by its moral precepts and its clear-cut monotheism."
p 39-40 Religion and Mentalities

Reasons for Christianity's success:

1) Organized
2) Took on the trappings of Greek thought to enlist the intellectuals

The Roman state accepted Christianity following the conversion of emperor Constantine. "Many of the converts who flocked to the new faith did so for reasons of ambition rather than conviction, and in return for the state's political and financial backing, bishops came to be treated as imperial officials and church councils often had to follow imperial instructions." P.40

Theodosius the Great(346-395) was the first emperor to enforce Christianity upon his subjects (The whole Roman empire) and the last ruler of the united empire.

Christianity had not yet acquired influence in northern Europe by the year 400.... By ~ the year 680 all english speaking nations had been converted in name only, but the Anglo-Saxon kings were beginning to enforce Christianity by law. When the Franks volunteered to "convert" the Saxons it was an excuse for conquest of Saxony. 772- Irminsul, the sacred oak tree of Pagan Saxons was chopped down. The Franks regarded Baptism as a mark of loyalty. 785-Charlemagne decreed that any conquered Saxons who refused to be baptized or insulted Christianity by going against a belief (for example: by eating meat on lent) were to be put to death. The "conversion" of the Saxons was the last great conquest of Christianity before the year 900. By conversion of aristocrats and kings, and conquering those in its path, Christianity had become powerful politically and economically.

More reasons for Christianity's success:

3)Targeting the powerful, once a King was converted, many followed out of loyalty to the king.

4) Those who resisted were "converted"



[This message has been edited by Kharakov (edited January 23, 2001).]

Yes, all of this was true.

Yes again, the ambitious always follow the power. The question, and the problem, is how did Christianity get it in the first place against such overwhelming historical odds?

Yes, he passed the first comprehensive laws to support the Church and to discourage paganism. But widespread persecutions of those pagans were extremely rare and sporadic, and no where near the scale of what Christians went through.

And again, we still need to explain the success of the Church before it had all the power of the state behind it.

We are starting to get very late by now. The Roman Empire was dead in the West, and power was dispersed, with barbarian tribes controlling most of Europe. Conversion of these barbarians could not be done by military means, and by and large, the monks that pulled off this conversion did it with the power of reasoning and education against the darkness and ignorance of the pagan tribes.

This is typical of history in all times, places, and religions (or non-religions). Wars are a fact of life in human history, and using religions as an excuse, as you have said, is a good one.

Yes. But again, no widespread persecutions. Certainly nothing like what Christians put up with 400 years+ earlier.

How many were actually killed? The existence of a law cannot be used as proof of persecution. On such a basis Christian repression during the Roman Empire can be viewed as basically uninterupted from the late 1st Century to the early 4th.

And this is even later. Christianity had effectively triumphed centuries before this. Finally, military conquest is not exactly "persecution" per se. The killings are more a function of war and conquest than anything else. Religion just gives the conquorers one more reason to do their job zealously.

This is also true, but history teaches us that if the people do not follow the king, even the most powerful monarchs will produce, at best, a temporary effect on the religion of their people. examples from ancient Egypt, to Julian the Apostate (who came after Constantine) to Queen Mary of England (between Henry VIII and Elizabeth I) show that the conversion of the monarch (even an enthusiastic conversion) is no guarantee of success for the religion in question.

As opposed to what? Sinister references to "conversions" is not critical thinking, or good argumentation.

Thank you for the post Kharakov. I look forward to whatever evidence you can dig up.

Nomad



[This message has been edited by Nomad (edited January 23, 2001).]

Nomad:

Nomad- this is my thought on the matter.

I believe Christian thought became so popular because it was recognized by those who preached it as the true path to power. I would hope that I would have been intelligent enough to jump on the bandwagon of Christian thought at the time of its conception (well maybe more around the time of its rise to power). Like many great ideas though- it did not bear fruit until those in power saw how useful it actually was. The people who were the leaders of Christian thought at the time when the rulers of the world first understood how it would benefit them were elevated to positions of power and influence.

This is the key!! My perception on the matter is that Christianity appeals to those who hold power. Christianity helps maintain control over the populace by teaching humility as a virtue. Instead of constantly fighting to take over the position of leadership- people would except their roles in society with "humility and grace".

The concept of a ruler being a servant of the people was recognized as useful in maintaining loyalty of the populace. A leader who 'believed' in Christ would appear to have the best interests of the populace in their heart. If the populace was indoctrinated into the Christian faith- it would serve the leader, as the populace would believe that the leader was acting out of benevolence because the leader was Christian too.

Christian philosophical thought was the concentrated effort of the greatest minds of the time. Christianity was the next logical step in the evolution of philosophical thought. It provided many benefits for both parties involved: the knowledge that appearing to serve the people gave the ruler a more stable power base, and peace of mind for the populace - to believe that the ruler actually did have their best interests in heart, because he was a fellow Christian.

Needless to say, this benefits the Ruler the most- which is why it is so easy for Christianity to "Convert" rulers.

"But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort." Luke 6:23-25

Was a passage that stated the rich had their comfort now- so would have less than the populace in the afterlife. It made having riches seem to be a sacrifice. What ruler or rich man would pass up the opportunity to promote a concept such as this? An intelligent ruler would recognize the benefits of appearing to believe this creed and forcing it upon their subjects.

If your subjects believe that riches will gain you pain upon death and their poverty will bring them pleasure, who does Christianity benefit? The ruler. Why were so many rulers 'converted' to Christianity and forcing or encouraging the conversion of their subjects? Self interest.

First off, Nomad asks "how did Christianity get it in the first place against such overwhelming historical odds?"

To which I respond: there were lots of religions and cults and self-styled prophets in the Roman Empire, some of them very weird ones, and some of which would get the interest of the authorities.

Consider our old friend Alexander of Abonutichus. Marcus Aurelius, the Emperor himself, would sometimes consult him; MA asked A of A for some advice about fighting some Germanic barbarians, the Marcomanni, at what is now Romania. A of A stated that if two lions were thrown into the Danube River, a great victory would result. MA did that, but it was the Marcomanni who had the great victory.

When challenged about that, A of A's response was "I didn't say which side".

But this did not stop A of A from having a very successful career. And if A of A could do it, then early Christianity certainly could.

Also, as to Christianity being convenient for the ruling classes, as Kharakov suggests, there are some problems with his analysis. In particular, the New Testament tends to be anti-wealth ("sell everything you have and give the money to the poor", etc.), which is rather hard to sell to rich people. Also, the early Christians tended to live in communal fashion, and we are told that Ananias and Sapphira got zapped for trying to hold on to their property. However, the extent of its political theorizing is that one ought to submit to the established authorities, even pagan ones (Romans 13 has always perplexed me with its claim that a pagan authority was set up by the Christian God). The Old Testament contains a lot of criticism of misbehaving monarchs, but otherwise, it supports a similar theory of government.