fatpie42

"Pro-natalist"? (Sorry I should probably google it)

Ok, now I'm even more confused "Pronatalism or simply natalism is an ideology promoting child-bearing". How would that be appealing? Women were already expected to bear children. :huh:

I never said it advocated equality. I said that the option to form nunnaries or become a nun might have appealed to some women because it meant they could escape from the obligation to become wives and mothers. (Which, oddly enough, seems to be the opposite of the reason you think Christianity might have appealed to them.)

Toto

By pro-natalist, I mean that Christianity prohibited abortions (which at that time were rather primitive medical procedures that often killed the woman). Christians also took in foundling infants who had been abandoned.

This might sound like the opposite of what you said, but I don't think it is. For women who wanted to have children, Christianity supported this. (There evidently were pressures on some urban women to have abortions or dispose of their children.) For women who wanted to avoid the entire state of marriage and children, Christianity provided the option of virginity.

mountainman

Who then were the BCE vestal virgins?
Stark's conjectures are wild.
As is his "statistical christian demographics".

I haven't had the time to check yet Toto but the Gortys Law Codes
may reveal alternative Hellenistic options were in already in place
regarding these issues. There was a "public hospital system of sorts"
operating under the therapeutae of Asclepius - this we know by the
abundant archaeological remains 500 BCE to 500 CE.

spamandham

That's odd. I thought you said you knew a thing or two about sociology. I'm certainly no expert, but I've at least read what the experts have to say in this regard. I recommend The Rise of Christianity, by Rodney Stark (professor of Sociology and comparative religion at the University of Washington. Of particular interest is chapter 2 in which he addresses this specific point.

So? I don't understand your expectation that there would be documents in the first place.

...and maybe he had a dog named scooby as well. Let's not substitute speculation for reasoned argument.

maryhelena

On a lighter note......

I found 'how-to-start-your-own-cult' online:

Interesting point re an attempt to take over an existing cult - highjack the basic beliefs by giving them ones own twist - and hey presto - a new religion is born......

Relating such an idea to early Christianity, perhaps its not so much a natural outgrowth of Judaism, as per the gospel story line, as an attempt, by others, possibly Herodians, to utilize what is preceived to be of value in it - while simultaneously undermining its core - a sort of Trojan horse approach.

However, the meek and mild gospel Jesus never did manage to fool the Jews......the hidden danger to their special identity (re god) was very quickly discerned.

Solo

So, let me understand a couple of things before I run the library: Rodney Stark states that there is some universal normative model of starting a religion to which Christianity conforms. Correct ? And under this norm a scenario in which a country preacher is executed in Jerusalem, and a political/religious faction opposed to the occupying authorities (and their collaborators) adopts a small band of his followers, would not be possible. Correct ?

I have no such expectation and you know it, s&h.


Many a day I travelled a hundred miles or more
but a straw dog with a name tag on
I have never seen before



Jiri

Toto

Starks' universal normative model actually says little about the founding myths of a religion and whether they are objectively true or not. His model concerns the spread of "new religions" (which others call cults,) and it posits that new religions spread by social contact among relatively well educated people who have been somehow removed from their traditional social support system - such as diaspora urban Jews in the Roman empire. He seems to think that the content of the religion, or its truth, is irrelevant.

(I have to state that I posted this without following all of the previous discussion. I'm not sure what anyone is trying to prove or disprove.)

Elijah

You’re missing the forest through the trees here. Let’s try this from the mythicist perspective. Regardless of your objections of each of the acts the authors were trying to portray a more serving messiah in contrast to the expected authoritative military leader. The idea was that if the problem with the world was the rulers then the people needed an example of a leader who served instead of ruled over the people…. and then if the people demanded that type of behavior from their leaders a new day would occur.
You’re assuming he’s a sexist and a fascist and demanding undeniable proof before you would consider otherwise. You have a preformed unsupported opinion on this. I think there has been evidence provided that he was for social change(not socialism) and were sympathetic to the cause of women and went as far as predicting a female authority coming down the line after she hears his message.

What’s the reason you have to believe he was a sexist or a fascist? (Or whatever third classification you may believe he supported.)

Google gave me this guy for supporting a feminist Jesus. But I also see there are complaints that he is portraying an overly sexist world back then to contrast Jesus. So again not sure of accuracy but he articulates some evidence of Jesus treating women as equals better then I think I can right now.
Well that’s fine, maybe you will find an example that fits the bill and I don’t doubt if you look long enough you can. But it should be considered an indication from him having female followers that he was a pro woman supporter. Yes there are other reasons but this it is just one piece of evidence to be included with the rest for consideration of the most likely scenario.
Even from a fictional point of view you should still see the writer trying to portray a more female friendly religious figure.
You have to excuse me, I’m dumb. I was saying that I didn’t want to do another myth debate or listen to complaints about the credibility of the texts. We have to work with the evidence we have. And then for some reason I said what looks like nonsense. (Reading that is a little worrisome.) I think I was trying to encourage you to choose a position on him and discourage sitting on the fence just being critical.
I’m confused. Shouldn’t Helena be considered a part of the Roman empire?
Yea but I think it’s the empire Meme that is the cause of all that persecution and suffering not the Christ meme which to me is just an authority figure dying for the people.
It would be nice if you did. Instead of being critical, actually providing what you feel is correct and support it. I don’t understand why he is a sexist and a fascist until proven otherwise. What’s the reasoning behind that?
Shouldn’t you assume he was for people and women’s rights until he says something or does something to say otherwise? A rational person should realize that there can only be peace on earth after the rulers stop oppressing man and men stop oppressing the women.
No that’s why I said without being asked. I think she raised him properly to do what was necessary at the time. She guided him to sacrifice his life, just differently then Abraham did.
I would guess probably trying to prevent the people from rebelling against their authority and the wage slavery.
I’m kind of lost on the point of the nun stuff. Are you suggesting they were doing something new with the ladies/nuns that no one else was doing at the time?
No I’m not kidding at all. It’s about equality. The qualities we consider masculine are the qualities that have generally been discouraged/oppressed in women.
I see him as it is prophesying a female authority (maybe even from an outside nation) discovering his message and faithful men (like the men of Nineveh were to Johan’s warning) will rising up at the judgment of this generation. Seems pretty straight forward, but it begs the question that Jesus or the writer was pushing a political reform meme. But let me know if you come up with something different.

Elijah

Did he think his sacrifice was going to help bring about that kingdom of god? What is your understanding of the Kingdom of God he is talking about and what kind of end to this world? Is it a social change or a supernatural “Left Behind” scenario? Are you understanding the story as being about a political Jewish messiah or as a supernatural end times preacher?
What do you suspect his view on women was and why?
If they were upset it would only be because they didn’t understand me and I would only need to clarify. Basically it means be more assertive.
So your position is that the place of women wasn’t discussed because everyone knew the deal there? And the “reversal of roles” is strictly for lowly men replacing the higher ups and excludes women?
If he did say straight up equality do you think it would have survived the edits? What do you think the reason for him speaking in parable and so confusing like that was if it wasn’t that his message said plainly wouldn’t be allowed?
The verse you put forward from Thomas has Peter bashing on Mary and Jesus was defending her with a feminist concept. I’m asking why show Jesus contrasting a sexist Peter if he wasn’t it wasn’t to show him as being more supportive of women?
I think it would help if you provided a counter position instead of just being skeptical of mine. And maybe explain why Jesus being a sexist is the rational default position that doesn’t need to be supported? Are you just assuming everyone was a sexist back then until proven otherwise?
I can agree with this. The “Peter’s” of the world are going to have a hard time spreading the information and more often it’s going to be the “Paul’s” of the world who actually go out and pick up new ideas to bring back to the intellectual fold. I don’t think that the phenomenon would be restricted to religion/cults but all ideas probably get bounced around by the more well to do intellectual community before being passed down to the masses. And I don’t think they would need to be removed from a traditional social support system, I think it would just be commonplace for the more educated and intellectual community to try out new ideas.

spamandham

Sociology studies patterns of behavior and makes predictions based on them. Is there good reason to think Christianity started in an atypical way?

Of course it's possible, but who cares about possibilities? The purpose of studying history is to seek out the most likely scenarios, not to speculate endlessly about possibilities.

I know it now.

Was there a purpose to mentioning it then?