Gamera

Teaching against wealth is not the same thing as what Christianity taught -- that there are two systems, one of this world involving Mammon, and one of God, and if you choose Mammon you're doomed.

That's not a message Roman culture could easily absorb. Tropes about wealth being corrupting to traditional Roman values were easily absorbed and part and parcel of Roman political rhetoric, which was nostalgic to the core, much like ours.

Malachi151

I find it highly doubtful that anyone in Rome would have been persecuted, much less singled out and persecuted, simply for "preaching" anything.

They were doing something, taking some action. All of the earliest writings about them indicates that they were militants. They were probably a bunch of poor hateful immigrants, kind of like the Muslims in France or something, who got incited to violence on occasion and rioted.

Gamera

I think that's naive. Clearly there was political hay to be made by Emperors and senators blaming jews and other foreigners for various social problems and Rome's own failures (just like today). The cases of Roman villification of Christianity is pretty well documentated. The scapegoating had to be somewhat plausible, so focusing on this jewish sect of Christians, who had strange "unRoman" teachings was a perfect target. Demonize, scapegoat, then persecute: it's a system that goes back to the beginning of politics.

Johnny Skeptic

I adequately refuted your arguments in my post #55 in the thread that is titled 'How fast a fictional belief becomes widespread?' Your arguments are no more than speculative propaganda.

Gamera

Since we have the written villifications, since I've shown how Christian teachings were "alien" to Roman discourse, and since there is sufficient documentation of persecution, I think the opposite is true.

Beside, your #55 went to a separate issue, the benefits to Christians.

Johnny Skeptic

I reasonably proved otherwise in my post #55 in the other thread. My sources were far better than your sources. Readers can decide for themselves.

Yes, I did discuss the benefits to Christians in the other thread, but I also extensively refuted your misinformed arguments regarding persecutions.

Gamera

No, that post was an attempt to undermine the notion that early Chrisitans suffered persecution under Roman rule. Whether they did or not doesn't resolve the issue of why Christianity spread. And latter persecutions of Christians are well-documented. Your source is only dealing with early Christianity. Nor does your extensive quote resolve the issue, which was the topic of the thread. Citing a source that agrees with you is not the same as arguing.

Johnny Skeptic

The promotion of anything is largely dependent upon the quality of the opposition. I will grant you that Christianity was better than the opposition, but that does not automatically make it true. Today, in the Western world, opposition to Christianity, particularly fundamentalist Christianity, is far superior to ancient paganism, and has enjoyed much greater success. It is my position that if advanced science and education had been around in ancient times, Christianity would never have had more than a few followers.

Gamera

Actually science was pretty advanced in the 1st century, with Aristotelian rationalism a force to contend with. That had nothing to do with the moral abyss that was classic pagan culture, nor did it mitigate the violence and cruelty of the time. I mean, National Socialist Germany was all too rationalistic and had great scientists. It was simply morally bankrupt. Science (while we both I think admire it as one of the greatest human achievements) is no guaranty against oppression.

Moreover, you are engaging in "back formation" of ethics. The ethical world you see around you -- to the extent that it at least holds up as values things like monogamy, altruism, respect for individual persons, and a rejection of purely utilitarian view of Others -- is the result of Judeo-Christian ethics. So in a sense you're asserting qualities in the modern world as a bludgeon against Christianity which in fact Christianity produced.

In any case, I sense in your argument an admission that Christianity spread because it offered a more attractive vision of human existence than classic paganism. And that's exactly what I was arguing for.

Malachi151

This is not true either. The level of knowledge in the ancient world was not surpassed again until around 1800 in the West. See my article on evolution for discussions of this:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...nst_Naturalism

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...stic_Worldview

Christianity took off for a varity of reasons, none of which having to do with the sensiblness of the religion.