aa5874

We are actually refering to belief in myths as it relates to religion, not beliefs as conspiracy theories.

David B

Oh fuck, why is there always a post that I want to reply to at length when it's time for bed, and I'm less than sober.

Oh well. Here goes.
I suppose that is something of a moot point, I suppose. I gather that the Bishop of Rome, following in the steps of St Peter, had a sort of primus inter paribus role before Constantine. But perhaps my recollection is at fault here. There was certainly a Christianity from which Roman Catholicism as we know it emerged before Constantine.



Am I supposed to be psychic? Read back to what you said. What you now claim is not implied by what you said. Also, I'd like an explanation of how a major cult can come to be without being a minor cult first.

I was talking about cultism generally. Which is clear in my post.



Please cite me evidence of political and/or economic forces aiding the propagation of Islam in its early years. I know of none. Early years - first decade.

This is the bit of your post that wound me up a bit, and inspired me to respond to it.

No, of course it can't!! Who said it could?

I find it hard to find the words at this point. 'non sequitor' springs to mind, as does 'straw man'.

What I really want to know is, what do you think inspired you to say something quite so....Oh dear... the only words which seem to fit are ... self censored.

Why, why, why, do you ask that question?





And religion is still very much part of life, myth related though it is, as I am not likely to forget.

I can do without being patronised.

But you suggest that we should not talk about myths in general, but confine ourselves to religion.

Personally, I take the view that the propagation of myths in general is relevant to the thread. So it looks like you are adopting the royal 'we'. Except as it applies to yourself.

David B

Waning Moon Conrad

An interesting test will be to see how many dickheads start bleating on about the church murdering Copernicus.

This is what Dan Brown in Angels and Demons states.

He is wrong. Copernicus died from a stroke.

Since the movie Amadeus came out, a lot of people believe that Salieri killed Mozart and a lot of people in the music world believe wrongly that Bach tuned his harpsichord using equal temperament. Once false beliefs set in, they are bloody hard to eradicate.

andrewcriddle

From Pope Stephen 1st (Pope 254-257 CE) the Bishop of Rome had claimed primacy as the successor of Peter. This claim was only gradually accepted by the church as a whole.

Andrew Criddle

Johnny Skeptic

I have debated this issue extensively, a lot at the Theology Web, and some here. Plenty of evidence disagrees with you, i.e. Rodney Stark's much praised book that it titled 'The Rise of Christianity.' In chapter 1 Stark offers a lot of expert corroboration for his statistical model. Among other dates, he estimates that there were only 7,530 Christians in 100 A.D. Some of his evidence is archaeological, and some is from ancient papyri.

Since your viewer profile says that you are an agnostic aka atheist, which I seriously doubt based upon reading your posts for the last few months since you always take issue with skeptics, including moderators, but seldom if ever with Christians. Such behavior is quite odd for a professing agnostic aka atheist. I am an agnostic, but you have treated me like I am an enemy. Are you not pleased with my battle against fundamentalist Christianity? What in the world do you care how large the Christian church was at any given time in history? How do any your opinions help skepticism? What are you trying to accomplish at this forum? I have not read any post where you criticized Christianity or Christians. In fact, every post that I have read by you so far at this forum has agreed with Christian positions, not skeptic positions. No one debates at the Secular Web or anywhere else without having an agenda. I am pretty sure that you are a closet Christian who is masquerading as an agnostic aka atheist in order to ward off criticism from skeptics while covertly arguing for Christianity. If you wish I will be happy to debate some of your posts at this forum with you and show readers that almost none of your positions are against Christianity or Christians and in fact help Christianity whenever you convince someone to agree with your positions. Your posts are about as useful to skeptics as tits on a wild boar, but I am certain that many Christians enjoy your posts. If your viewer profile had said that you are a Christian, no one could have told the difference from your posts. I have never encountered a skeptic that argues like you, and I am suspicious regarding your true intentions at this forum.

hatsoff

I have not read Rise in full, but I am unsatisfied with Stark's growth model, which, if I remember correctly, is based (arbitrarily, it would seem) on Mormon growth. Like I said above, the geographical spread of Christianity known to have occurred by the late 50s AD suggests to me that the number of Christians would have been much greater than seven or eight thousand by 100 AD.

You can believe whatever you want. The same goes for everyone else. If you choose to believe, however, that I am a Christian, then you would be mistaken.

As for skepticism, you seem to treat this like a team sport. Unlike you, I do not harbor any ill will toward Christianity or Christians. Neither do I have any bad feelings for atheism. Instead, I am only after the truth, whatever it may be.

Finally, since you are so curious, I will tell you I am here on this board for several reasons: Primarily, for entertainment; secondarily, to learn more about Christian-related subjects (just like this one). Quite simply, I'm here to enjoy myself. If you're expecting some secret agenda I am sorry to disappoint you.

Toto

You are overestimating the reliability of your information if you think that anything is "known" about the spread of Christianity in the first century. The conventional dating of Paul's letters has only faith behind it.

Diogenes the Cynic

There's no reason to believe that Paul's communities were composed of more than a few dozen people in each place. Hatsoff, do you have some reason to believe that the spread of Christianity in the first two centuries was any greater than the spread of LDS or Scientology?

hatsoff

I have no idea how quickly LDS or Scientology spread, so I can't answer your question. It's like I said, the geography given by Paul's letters (and Acts) suggests higher numbers than the seven or eight thousand given by the Rise model.

RED DAVE

From hatsoff:
Please explain.

RED DAVE