Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Elijah · 01-07-2011, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Religions that have some sort of barrier to entry are generally more successful.

People do not convert because of the message. They convert to join a social group, and then justify their decision by learning to rationalize the theology. Having a few martyrs or a painful initiation ceremony can be a plus, based on the observations of sociologists.

I agree that people aren’t converting because of the message often but I think you are wrong about painful or difficult initiations help a movement. I think Christianity is helped the most, (right after the martyrs), by how easy it is to become a Christian. I don’t know how many other movements weren’t based around some kind of behavior or particular understanding of God/Universe being necessary for salvation but the Jesus movement was lenient in both regards giving it a recruiting advantage.

I think the people are responding emotionally to the sight of seeing people martyr themselves early on and that emotional charge with the conviction to die is what helps convince others. After that the convenience of being a Christian makes it easy to switch over. The benefit that providing social help would provide recruitment would have to come after the movement is established enough to offer help on a continual basis IMO.

Chili · 01-07-2011, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Toto:

I question the conclusion of your sociologists. Certainly the most successful religion we know of is Christianity, at least in terms of adherents. Far from having high barriers to entry, since the time of Constantine at least, it has been a positive boon to become Christian. It was a road to government office in Rome, post Constantine, and a way to keep your head in the presence of Charlemagne. It was for all intents and purposes mandatory throughout Europe until after the enlightenment. In the current day the stigma, in the United States at least attaches to not being Christian. Nevertheless Christianity flourishes.

I was at a church for Christmas Pageant last month where a friend’s daughter was performing. They had an alter call at the conclusion of the pageant. Talk about low barriers to entry, they would have taken me had I schlepped up to the front of the room.

Whatever high barriers to entry may have existed at one time, they don’t appear to be necessary to the continued growth of Christianity. I think we need to look for another explanation.

Steve

Religion was never meant to be a social club but a tithe instead werein we are to spend 10% of our time contemplating our distiny in return for their input.

It would help sociologists to understand the distinction between Catholic and Christian in that Catholics are not Christian in the same way as Jesus [nee Joseph] was not a Jew after he became a Christian. That is just 'American thing' I think, or Brittish, one could argue, who think that 'Dutch' and 'Deutsch' are the same while the people in Holland speak Netherlands and that Holland is a province divided between North and South Holland in Netherland.

bacht · 01-07-2011, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Religions that have some sort of barrier to entry are generally more successful.

People do not convert because of the message. They convert to join a social group, and then justify their decision by learning to rationalize the theology. Having a few martyrs or a painful initiation ceremony can be a plus, based on the observations of sociologists.

I agree that people aren’t converting because of the message often but I think you are wrong about painful or difficult initiations help a movement. I think Christianity is helped the most, (right after the martyrs), by how easy it is to become a Christian. I don’t know how many other movements weren’t based around some kind of behavior or particular understanding of God/Universe being necessary for salvation but the Jesus movement was lenient in both regards giving it a recruiting advantage.

I think the people are responding emotionally to the sight of seeing people martyr themselves early on and that emotional charge with the conviction to die is what helps convince others. After that the convenience of being a Christian makes it easy to switch over. The benefit that providing social help would provide recruitment would have to come after the movement is established enough to offer help on a continual basis IMO.

I wonder. In the early days of Catholicism converts would have been drawn either by public displays of piety (martyrs) or private teachings about the new "philosophy" of pseudo-Platonic Christianity. Most of these converts would have been pagans, who either wanted more ethical content in their religion, or were seeking a new social network.

Toto · 01-07-2011, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Toto:

I question the conclusion of your sociologists.

So you don't always follow the experts.

Quote:

Certainly the most successful religion we know of is Christianity, at least in terms of adherents.

That's only if you count a lot of nominal Christians who were baptized, but haven't been in church since that time.

Quote:

Far from having high barriers to entry, since the time of Constantine at least, it has been a positive boon to become Christian. It was a road to government office in Rome, post Constantine, and a way to keep your head in the presence of Charlemagne. It was for all intents and purposes mandatory throughout Europe until after the enlightenment. In the current day the stigma, in the United States at least attaches to not being Christian. Nevertheless Christianity flourishes.

Christianity has not been a free ride, especially when it had no state support. There have been requirements for tithing, or giving all of your money to the church, plus requirements to fast, not eat meat on Fridays, and to abstain from sex.

In 21st century America, some denominations of Christianity have loosened all the rules, so it might appear to you that there are no barriers to entry. But the mainline protestants who have these low barriers are actually losing members. It is the stricter versions that are growing.

Chili · 01-07-2011, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

[ It is the stricter versions that are growing.

Interesting but true. If nothing else it shows that properly guided slavery can be a good thing.

Elijah · 01-07-2011, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

I wonder. In the early days of Catholicism converts would have been drawn either by public displays of piety (martyrs) or private teachings about the new "philosophy" of pseudo-Platonic Christianity. Most of these converts would have been pagans, who either wanted more ethical content in their religion, or were seeking a new social network.

I would imagine by the time they were using words like Catholic it was because they were already past the works vs. faith argument and at least into the gnosis vs. faith debate. That being said I think if the person was attracted to the philosophical side then they would have went with another faction over the orthodox side that promoted faith over understanding of philosophy for salvation.

It’s hard to imagine that there were lots of people who were looking for more ethical content and even harder to imagine that Christianity would be the place to get it. I think the social aspect takes over when it gets big enough but I think it just comes down to those martyrs being damn convincing that he really did come back from the dead and that conviction being contagious.

OLDMAN · 01-07-2011, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLDMAN

You have to look at how the NT was written to see the real story.

Eg. Jesus climbs a mountain, Satan appears and they have a conversation, later Jesus returns and gives a sermon.

But Jesus does not (in his sermon) tell the story of Satan appearing or their conversation.

So who was this third person who tagged along for all of Jesus's adventures?

This happens throughout the bible, even when Jesus is taken for his trials with Herod and Pialate. It is clear the desciples weren't there, so who is this intrepid reporter?

(Luke 1:3) So it seemed good to me as well, because I have followed all things carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,

(Luke 8:3) and Joanna the wife of Cuza (Herod's household manager), Susanna, and many others who provided for them out of their own resources.

No, the original author who writes from the third person perspective when Jesus isn't speaking. Luke was written well after the death of Jesus, it is most likely the origional verson of a story already written or spoken by others that Luke is copying.

Joanna is not reported to be the author of the trial nor would there be any reason for her to be there, she is simply a follower who supports (feeds) the others.

It is, as has been said before...a passion play.

aa5874 · 01-07-2011, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The question of why cults spread has been studied scientifically. It relates to social issues and has little to do with the specific beliefs.

It's the martyrdom of Jesus that his followers imitated that helped convince people that there was something real going on. “the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church,” Tertullian. It was the greatest ad campaign of all-time.

What you claim cannot be shown to be true.

When did Jesus Christ ACTUALLY LIVE?

When did Jesus Christ ACTUALLY DIE?

Even in the NT Jesus Christ was RAISED from the DEAD and it was his RESURRECTION that was the GOOD NEWS.

But, now please prove or show that Jesus Christ or his disciples ever lived and were martyred.

It can be SHOWN that it was the EMPEROR of ROME who LAUNCHED the GREATEST CAMPAIGN for Jesus Christ with the ROMAN CHURCH.

And it was the BLOOD of the so-called "HERETICS", the BLOOD of the so-called "ENEMIES" of the Church that was SPILLED to bring the MYTH JESUS to LIFE.

Chili · 01-07-2011, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

What you claim cannot be shown to be true.

When did Jesus Christ ACTUALLY LIVE?

When did Jesus Christ ACTUALLY DIE?

He never lived nor died in your meaning of the word actual.

Quote:

Even in the NT Jesus Christ was RAISED from the DEAD and it was his RESURRECTION that was the GOOD NEWS.

Jesus was raised and his ascension was the good news in that both comedy and tragedy are raised to present the outcome of the crisis moment.

Quote:

But, now please prove or show that Jesus Christ or his disciples ever lived and were martyred.

It can be SHOWN that it was the EMPEROR of ROME who LAUNCHED the GREATEST CAMPAIGN for Jesus Christ with the ROMAN CHURCH.

And it was the BLOOD of the so-called "HERETICS", the BLOOD of the so-called "ENEMIES" of the Church that was SPILLED to bring the MYTH JESUS to LIFE.

Yes but heretics are enemies for a reason and not just "so-called," and as a good shepherd the Church had the right to keep the wolves at bay instead of roaming the flock to lead sheep astray. Their grounds were sufficient and they must have ran out of millstones to keep Christ alive in the Church (hint, they are not Jesus worshipers).

Kapyong · 01-07-2011, 08:51 PM

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meatros

what are the chances that the basis for the New Testament - or rather the Q was written basically whole cloth out of the Old Testament (with other influences perhaps)

Very good if you're a JMer :-)

Check out Michael Turtons (Vorkosigan here) page :
http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark_index.html

K.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.