Freethought & Rationalism Archive

arnoldo · 02-25-2010, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

...
I'm having trouble understanding the following from the book, could you please explain?

...

IMHO -

Sociologists of religion look at society, and assume that if something exists, it must have a function, some payback. Otherwise it would die out. There is an underlying assumption that people are smart enough to know their own interests and to follow them.

So Stark and other sociologists of religion see that religions that require the most of their followers - mutiliating the body, semi-starvation, etc. - seem to be the most successful, while easy going religions like Unitarianism are not doing so well these days. Their explanation is that the sacrifices that a religion might require are part of the mechanism for creating group cohesion.

So during the time of the Roman Empire paganism was this easy going religion which faded while Christianity, which made more demands on it's followers, grew.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Stark actually has no evidence of Christian martyrdom, and no interviews with early Christians that showed how successful it was, or not. He's just working from a model that says that is how things work.

IIRC, Stark also mentions that the acts of kindness that Christians displayed to one another as well as non-believers also had an impact on the growth of Christianity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Actual empirical evidence shows that people often do not know their own best interests and do all sorts of outrightly stupid things, repeatedly. But that's another subject.

Empirical evidence cannot show what people should do for their best interest. These are prescriptive truths that fall within the realm of philosophy. But that's another subject.

aa5874 · 02-25-2010, 04:19 PM

I have noticed that many make reference to the Christians implying that there were only Christians who believed in Jesus Christ as found in the NT.

But, being called Christian in antiquity did not mean or always mean a person who believed in Jesus of the NT.

There was no such thing as orthodox belief about Jesus Christ and further there was no orthodox doctrine to determine who was a Christian.

Anyone could have called themself a Christian. Or inversely anyone could have been called a non-christian by some who claims he was a true Christian. There was no authoritative body that determined who was a Christian.

This is the state of affairs of Christians at around the middle of the 2nd century. It was anything goes.

This Justin Martyr in "First Apology" 7

Quote:

...But some one will say, Some have ere now been arrested and convicted as evil-doers. For you condemn many, many a time, after inquiring into the life of each of the accused severally, but not on account of those of whom we have been speaking.

And this we acknowledge, that as among the Greeks those who teach such theories as please themselves are all called by the one name "Philosopher," though their doctrines be diverse, so also among the Barbarians this name on which accusations are accumulated is the common property of those who are and those who seem wise.

For all are called Christians.

See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com

How can it be determined when people started to call themselves Christians on account of being wise? And it is known that there were Christians in antiquity who did not worship Jesus of the NT at all.

Johnny Skeptic · 02-25-2010, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Message to arnoldo: If as the New Testament claims, Jesus actually performed many miracles in Jerusalem, and throughout all of Galilee, and throughout all of Syria, and performed many miracles that the texts did not mention, he would have easily been a unique man in human history, his miracles would have been unprecedented in human history, and he would have become a big celebrity throughout not only Palestine, but also throughout the Middle East and beyond. Josephus would have been all over those claims like a dog on a steak bone, but he wasn't, and neither were any other first century historians, which indicates that the claims were not circulating during the time of Jesus, and were made up later, perhaps decades later. No one can make a good case for Christianity without providing reasonable evidence that Jesus performed miracles.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Nobody can provide absolute evidence that Peter performed the following miracles.......

And nobody can provide absolute proof that Hillary Clinton is not an alien, but obviously, absolute proof if not an issue. What is an issue is which claims are probable, and which claims are not probable. It is not probable that Jesus and Peter performed miracles, or anyone else in the Bible for that matter.

Johnny Skeptic · 02-25-2010, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

.......why wouldn't Jews in the first century reject miracles by simply attributing them to demonic forces or simply claiming that the witnesses to these miracles were inebriated/hallucinating?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

If Moses performed many miracles in Egypt, why would any Jew complain if Jesus performed miracles too?

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

The Jews complained to Moses about the harsh conditions they were experiencing, some wanted to go back to Egypt, or replace Moses with another leader altogether.

But Old Testament Jews believed that Jesus performed many miracles in Egypt by the power of God, not by the power of the Devil. There is not anything in the Old Testament that suggests that a Messiah would be rejected if he healed people. It is a New Testament fabrication that the Pharisees accused Jesus of healing by the power of Beelzebub. Even if Jesus did heal people by the power of Beelzebub, there is no way that the Pharisees could have known that. Today, many Jews who reject Jesus believe that Moses performed miracles in Egypt. How many Jews do you know of today who believe that Jesus healed people by the power of Beelzebub.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

[Jesus] refused to perform miracles/signs for certain Jews who only wanted to see signs/miracles.

But the issue is whether or not New Testament Jews accused Jesus of healing people by the power of Beelzebub, and it is probable that they didn't.

Why do you frequently quote a fairy tale without any historical corroboration? Are you an inerrantist? If so, based upon what evidence? If not, why do you frequently quote the Bible? How in the world can you be reasonably certain what Moses, Jesus, and the Pharisees said and did?

Johnny Skeptic · 02-25-2010, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

I'm having trouble understanding the following from the book, could you please explain?

Quote:

"In my judgment it was the martyrs of the sixties who eased the crisis of failed prophecy.......

Failed prophecy? Now that is quite interesting since prophecy is one of your favorite subjects. Your source Rodney Stark said that there was a failed prophecy crisis. That is understandable since Bible prophecies are some of the best reasons why people should reject the Bible. You were certainly wrong when you once claimed that the Partition of Palestine was a fulfillment of Bible prophecy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

"and small numbers, by adding their suffering to that of Jesus as proof of atonement. In the context of this chapter's earlier discussion of credibility, it seems appropriate to ask how much more credible witnesses could be found than those who demonstrate the worth of a faith by embracing torture and death.......It was not simply the promise of salvation that motivated Christians, but the fact that they were greatly rewarded here and now for belonging, Thus while membership was expensive, it was, in fact a bargain."

You are trying to convince unwary, uninformed readers Rodney Stark is making a significant issue out of Christian martyrdom, but he isn't. In fact, the opposite is the case. Consider the following:

http://www.catholicity.com/mccloskey...istianity.html

The Rise of Christianity
by Rodney Stark - published by Princeton University Press, 1996

A Book Review by Father John McCloskey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Father John McCloskey

The author [Rodney Stark] goes on to ask a further question, "How could a rational person accept grotesque torture and death in exchange for risky, intangible religious rewards?" The answer he gives is the sensible one although not necessarily the one that one would want or expect. "First of all, many early Christians probably could not have done so, and some are known to have recanted when the situation arose. Second, persecutions rarely occurred, and only a tiny number of Christians ever were martyred.......There was surprisingly little effort to persecute Christians, and when a wave of persecutions occurred, usually only bishops and other prominent figures were singled out." Thus according to Stark and other sociologists, only some thousands were martyred over the course of two and one-half centuries and not the hundreds of thousands or even millions that are sometimes claimed by enthusiastic Christian historians.

As Rodney Stark said, "persecutions rarely occurred, and only a tiny number of Christians ever were martyred." It is interesting that you do not understand your own source's position on Christian martyrs. If you did, you would not have brought up the issue.

What motivated Japanese Kamikaze pilots, and what motivates Muslim terrorists? Obviously, belief in lies or false claims, just like Christian martyrs.

arnoldo · 02-27-2010, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I have noticed that many make reference to the Christians implying that there were only Christians who believed in Jesus Christ as found in the NT.

But, being called Christian in antiquity did not mean or always mean a person who believed in Jesus of the NT.

There was no such thing as orthodox belief about Jesus Christ and further there was no orthodox doctrine to determine who was a Christian.

Anyone could have called themself a Christian. Or inversely anyone could have been called a non-christian by some who claims he was a true Christian. There was no authoritative body that determined who was a Christian.

This is the state of affairs of Christians at around the middle of the 2nd century. It was anything goes.

This Justin Martyr in "First Apology" 7

Quote:

...But some one will say, Some have ere now been arrested and convicted as evil-doers. For you condemn many, many a time, after inquiring into the life of each of the accused severally, but not on account of those of whom we have been speaking.

And this we acknowledge, that as among the Greeks those who teach such theories as please themselves are all called by the one name "Philosopher," though their doctrines be diverse, so also among the Barbarians this name on which accusations are accumulated is the common property of those who are and those who seem wise.

For all are called Christians.

See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com

How can it be determined when people started to call themselves Christians on account of being wise? And it is known that there were Christians in antiquity who did not worship Jesus of the NT at all.

Christians existed before the writings of the NT were "codified." The differences in the particular beliefs of early christians is to be expected as this new jewish sect spread out from geographical area in ancient Israel and spread outwards towards primarily Roman controlled areas with a wide variety of cultures. . Furthermore given time, perhaps one to two hundred years, schisms would increase. Eventually, a crisis of sorts would arrive where this differences would be attempted to be sorted. On the other hand if christianity were to be a work of fiction written in the second century or latter such differences would be minimal. By way of comparison, in the span of less than a hundred years, many sects have developed based on various interpretations of Joseph Smith's message.

Quote:

This category has the following 11 subcategories, out of 11 total. B
[+] Brighamite sects in the Latter Day Saint movement (2 C, 13 P)
C
[+] The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (16 C, 3 P)
[+] Community of Christ (2 C, 34 P, 1 F)
[+] Cutlerite sects in the Latter Day Saint movement (2 P) D
[+] Defunct Latter Day Saint denominations (25 P)
F
[+] Mormon fundamentalist sects (1 C, 12 P)
J
[+] Josephite sects in the Latter Day Saint movement (1 C, 10 P)
P
[+] Pre-succession crisis sects in the Latter Day Saint movement (5 P) R
[+] Rigdonite–Bickertonite sects in the Latter Day Saint movement (1 C, 4 P)
S
[+] Strangite sects in the Latter Day Saint movement (1 C, 4 P)
W
[+] Whitmerite sects in the Latter Day Saint movement (9 P)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor..._denominations

The fact that there were many different sects in both mormonism and early christianity support that they were historical, rather than mythical, events.

arnoldo · 02-27-2010, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

What motivated Japanese Kamikaze pilots, and what motivates Muslim terrorists?

Their motivation is in part to kill other people.

Johnny Skeptic · 02-27-2010, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

What motivated Japanese Kamikaze pilots, and what motivates Muslim terrorists?

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Their motivation is in part to kill other people.

What you said is quite odd since Christians conquered the largest empire in history by far by means of persecution, murder, and theft of property, and the victors often warred among themselves for the spoils of victory. What do you suppose their motivation was? What do you suppose the motivation of early Americans was when they persecuted and killed native American Indians?

For many centuries, a large percentage of Christians endorsed slavery, colonization, and the subjugation of women. If you had been born centuries ago, it is reasonably possible if not probable that you would have endorsed those things too, which suggests that secular factors determine what people believe, not a God.

You are the one who originally brought up the issue of martyrs by quoting Rodney Stark, <edited> since Stark said, as I showed in my post #55, "First of all, many early Christians probably could not have done so, and some are known to have recanted when the situation arose. Second, persecutions rarely occurred, and only a tiny number of Christians ever were martyred.......There was surprisingly little effort to persecute Christians, and when a wave of persecutions occurred, usually only bishops and other prominent figures were singled out."

It is quite interesting that you brought up the issue of martyrs even though your own source says that Christians were rarely persecuted, and that only a tiny number were martyred.

Johnny Skeptic · 02-27-2010, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

The fact that there were many different sects in both Mormonism and early Christianity support that they were historical, rather than mythical, events.

I will concede for the sake of argument that a historical Jesus existed, but if he did exist, he was an ordinary man, and he did not perform any miracles. In other words, if a historical Jesus existed, so what? If any other claimed historical character performed miracles, so what?

arnoldo · 02-27-2010, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

What motivated Japanese Kamikaze pilots, and what motivates Muslim terrorists?

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Their motivation is in part to kill other people.

. . .

You are the one who originally brought up the issue of martyrs by quoting Rodney Stark, <consistency edit> since Stark said, as I showed in my post #55, "First of all, many early Christians probably could not have done so, and some are known to have recanted when the situation arose. Second, persecutions rarely occurred, and only a tiny number of Christians ever were martyred.......There was surprisingly little effort to persecute Christians, and when a wave of persecutions occurred, usually only bishops and other prominent figures were singled out."

It is quite interesting that you brought up the issue of martyrs even though your own source says that Christians were rarely persecuted, and that only a tiny number were martyred.

I agree that only a "some thousands" of christians were martyred rather than millions according to the source you provided.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Father John McCloskey
Thus according to Stark and other sociologists, only some thousands were martyred over the course of two and one-half centuries and not the hundreds of thousands or even millions that are sometimes claimed by enthusiastic Christian historians.

Here is tomb inscription of some of those thousands. . .

Quote:

Inscription in the Tomb of the Four Martyrs - Listing Names Zoticos, Attalos, Kamasis and Filippos

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...ity_in_Romania

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

The fact that there were many different sects in both Mormonism and early Christianity support that they were historical, rather than mythical, events.

I will concede for the sake of argument that a historical Jesus existed, but if he did exist, he was an ordinary man, and he did not perform any miracles.

Because miracles are scientifically impossibly?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.