Johnny Skeptic

"Remarkable" does not necessarily mean "true". A thousand years from now who knows which world views will have enjoyed remarkable successes. History is still quite young.

aa5874

Well how do you explain the success of the Muslim religion, there are over a billion Muslims, and their religion has spread while rejecting the claim that Allah had a Son. What existential issues does the Muslim religion address?

Again, the spread of all the major religions is directly linked to State Control. Christianity would have virtually been wiped off the face of the Earth was it not for Constantine. The spread of religion has very little to do theology. The conversion rates of colonisation far outstrips missionary work in any religion. The acceptance of a religion because of fear of economical and social hardship is far more commonplace than acceptance voluntarily.

As is evident today, Christianity is becoming more fragmented because of the loss of direct State Control, and this fragmentation will continue. There are hundreds of Christian Doctrines that contradict each other and a point will come when Christianity will become obsolete, just like religions of the past. This due to the fact that the 'Christ' is not known to exist.

Malachi151

Absolute nonsense. What planet are you from?

First of all, one of the best examples of a movement similar to Christianity in the 2nd and 3rd century is probably the Hamas movement in Palestine.

Is Hamas popular in Palestine because "it speaks to humanity's existenial situation in a way" that other systems don't? I doubt it!

Hamas was nothing 30 years ago, today it is at the head of the Palestinian government. Why? Because the ethics of Hamas are superior to the ethics of moderate Islam, Marxism, Christianity, Judaism, or other systems operating in the area? NO!

Because Hamas is a militant movement that embodies the anger and dispare of an oppressed and immobile people? Yes. Because Hamas was organized and provided care to people who were not gettign care from other institutions? Yes.

The practical concerns of the people have nothing to do with lofty metaphysics. The succes of movements generally also have nothing to do with lofty metaphysics with a few exceptions among confortable societies among people whose practical concerns are generally taken care of.

The Christian movement was not popular in the 1st century. It became popular in the 2nd and 3rd century for a variety of reasons, which include:

1) Rome was undergoing a major economic decline, leading to increases of poverty, and the Christian movement was a movement among the poor.

2) The education system of Rome declined in this period, and this led to increasing ignorance, and Christianity was popular among the uneducated.

3) Rome suffered a series of military defeats, and Romans tended to blame problems of the State on the primary diety. During troubled time the Romans were known to move new dieties into positions of prominence. In this case many common people became dissatisfied with Mithras and many turned to Christianity, not seeing any real difference between the Christian religion and others of the time.

4) The Roman military was becoming increasinly Christian because of the decline in the economy and a series of losses, which led to more of the poor moving into the military and a loosening of standards. The heavy Christian belief in "eternal life" was also easily exploited by Constantine. He found that Christians would fight to the death with the beleif that they would be rewarded in death. Thus he catered to the Christians, whcih swelled the ranks of the army with Christians, at a time when the army was THE KEY to political power in Rome. He who controlled the army controlled Rome. The Christians were an easily exploitable bunch, that were eager to get recognition from the State.

5) At the same time, the "old wealth" and "old power" in Rome was in the hands of the "pagans", so the Emperors who wanted to strip power from entrenched family enemies had an advantage by wooing Christains, and using that power to undermine the interests of the wealthy "pagan" families.

The rise of Christianity had nothing to do with superiority of anwsering any questions. Christianity was an ignorant religion that espoused beliefs that were well below the level fo discourse at the time. It was ridiculed during its rise as a religion if ignorant fools. That wasn't the issue though.

It was successful for the same reason that Hamas is successful, because it embodied the desires of the poor and marginalized and it offered a tool for those seeking power to undermine their political enemies.

The only thing that the Enlightenment has to do with Christianity is the rejection of it. The Enlightenment was simply the re-embracing of pre-Christian knowledge and philosophy.

Gamera

Islam had great success for two obvious reason. One it was spread by war and forced conversion. Second, it in fact has a very attractive message that was directed at a pagan populations that for whatever reason Christianity did not prosletyze.

Early Christianity was not disseminated by war or colonialism, but solely on the power of its message.

Gamera

[QUOTE=Malachi151]The one in which Skepitcal quoted Stark, which I agreed with. It's not my quote its Skeptical and Starks, though I think she got it right in that one quote.


Since early Christianity wasn't militant but pacifist in nature, your analogy fails miserably.

Didn't say it did. I said Christianity addressed existential concerns that pagan culture did not.

Sounds good to me. At least you've admitted that the message of Christianity itself was the force behind it spreading, not because it was a fiction,, as others had argued.

That's my point. It was villified and yet still spread, suggesting the power of its message.

As noted above, this makes no sense, since Hamas is militant and espouses violence, early Christianity was the opposite -- so you would expect it exactly NOT to be accepted by the disenfranchised, yearning to be free.

A cliff note kind of analysis. The enlightenment was a pretty direct result of a kind of thinking (involving subjects and objects) that arose in the West due in great part because of Christianity and its particular concepts of humanity and the world. That's why, by the way, it arose in the West and not in a dozen other cultures that had religious traditions.

Gamera

You're arguing with a straw man. I've never claimed the success of Christianity was probative of its "truth," whatever that means. I've merely pointed out that factual fictions don't bear on existential issues that Christianity did, and that even Stark, whom you quoted, saw this as a reason for its successes.

Johnny Skeptic

But neither Stark nor ANY of his many corroboritive sources EVER indicate that the Christian church grew because the God of the Bible exists. ALL of Stark's explanations regarding the Christian church's growth were entirely secular. Buddha gave the world a version of the Golden Rule centuries before Christ, and the Greeks gave the world a version of democracy centuries before Christ. The Microsoft Encarta Encyopedia Deluxe 2004 says the following:

"The Code of Hammurabi contains no laws having to do with religion. The basis of criminal law is that of equal retaliation, comparable to the Semitic law of “an eye for an eye.” The law offers protection to all classes of Babylonian society; it seeks to protect the weak and the poor, including women, children, and slaves, against injustice at the hands of the rich and powerful.

"The code is particularly humane for the time in which it was promulgated; it attests to the law and justice of Hammurabi's rule. It ends with an epilogue glorifying the mighty works of peace executed by Hammurabi and explicitly states that he had been called by the gods “to cause justice to prevail in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil.” He describes the laws in his compilation as enabling “the land to enjoy stable government and good rule,” and he states that he had inscribed his words on a pillar in order “that the strong may not oppress the weak, that justice may be dealt the orphan and the widow.” Hammurabi counsels the downtrodden in these ringing words: “Let any oppressed man who has a cause come into the presence of my statue as king of justice, and have the inscription on my stele read out, and hear my precious words, that my stele may make the case clear to him; may he understand his cause, and may his heart be set at ease!”

Incredibly, Hammurabi lived in the 18th century B.C., or about the same time that Jews were killing their own people for working on the Sabbath day, and killing women and children from neighboring tribes. It is important to note that at least on one occasion, Moses told his victorious soldiers to keep the women who had not slept with a man for themselves.

Your arguments are ridiculous. God could not possibly care very much about the spread of the Gospel message, as evidenced by his apathy in allowing hundreds of millions of people to die without ever having heard the Gospel message. Exodus 4:11 says "And the Lord said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord?" How utterly detestible.

You claim that you are interested in evidence, but that is not true. You would surely reject THE VERY SAME EVIDENCE if the evidence said that everyone would go to hell. In other words, the number of eyewitnesses, the number of gospels, the number of copies of ancient manuscripts would not matter at all, in fact, even if the evidence was twice as good as the evidence that is found in the Bible.

Regardless of the evidence, self-interest ALWAYS presumes that whenever a person is confronted by evidence that claims that he will go to hell, it is best to argue against the evidence, or if a person is uncertain to hope that the evidence was wrong. There would be no possible advantage in doing otherwise.

If a powerful being came from outer space, claimed be a God other than the God of the Bible, demonstrated FIRSTHAND in front of everyone in the world, not hearsay evidence like in the Bible, that he could convert energy into matter and destroy a large building in one second, said that he was going to destroy the earth in six months, and left the earth, most Christians would hope that the supposed God would somehow not be able to carry out his threat. On the other hand, if a being from outer space came to earth, claimed that he was Jesus, and demonstrated THE EXACT SAME POWERS, Christians would hope, in fact assume, that the being was actually Jesus.

Hypothetical arguments are often excellent means of revealing inconsistent arguments. Christians frequently use them whenever they believe that it suits their purposes to do so. A good example is C. S. Lewis’ ‘Lord, Liar, or Lunatic.’ Evidence that cannot be credibly consistently applied is not evidence at all.

Gamera

I don't understand your argument. Let's stipulate that neither Stark nor you nor I claim that the spread of Christianity is any indication that it is factually true.

Both Stark and I do assert, however, that the existential issues addressed by the gospel message attacted a following in the context of a pagan culture that seemed morally bankrupt.

I think that explains its success as an historical datum. And thus this makes it a different process of dispersal than, say, fictive beliefs about UFOs.

Johnny Skeptic

There is no need for any stipulation on Stark's part. ALL of his evidence is entirely secular.

I do not dispute that, but so what?

By "different", do you mean divine? Maybe Paul was just centuries ahead of his time in a secular way, maybe 1st Corinthians 15:1-8 is an interpolation, and maybe there was a lot more borrowing among the Gospel writers than you suppose.

I said:

Would you or would you not reject the very same quality of evidence if the evidence said that you will go to hell?

Gamera

No I don't mean divine.

Fictions about UFO don't involve discourse that deals with people's existential condition. The gospel does. So does Plato.

Claims about UFOs are either true or false. Plato's writing isn't true or false. It's either meaningful or not. The gospel is like Plato, not like UFO claims.