How Account for the Success of Christianity?
This question comes to my mind during the Christmas season. I'm inclined to attribute it several factors, which I'll summarize.
First, its thorough assimilation of pagan religious beliefs, especially those of the various pagan mystery cults involving rebirth, salvation and life after death (it also assimilated a great deal of pagan philosophy as well, but though this was useful in providing, awkwardly I think, intellectual support for Christianity I doubt it contributed much to its spread). Christmas itself is evidence of this assimilation, as its celebration consists in great part of the customs of the Roman Saturnalia and the northern European Yule. The date chosen for the celebration of Jesus' birth, of course, is the traditional date of the birth of Sol Invictus and other gods associated with the Winter Solstice
Second, its ruthless and relentless suppression of all other religious beliefs after Christians acquired control of the Roman imperial government, including suppression of Christian variants deemed heretical once orthodoxy was established (I mean those popular before the Reformation). In short, it profited from its intolerance.
Third, zealous commitment to its spread among non-Christians (the missionary impulse), sometimes by force of arms.
Fourth, the appeal of a religion which promised forgiveness of sins, thus providing hope that salvation was possible regardless of wrongs committed during life.
Which tells us something about successful institutional religion and ourselves, I think; none of it inspiring or attractive.
First, its thorough assimilation of pagan religious beliefs, especially those of the various pagan mystery cults involving rebirth, salvation and life after death (it also assimilated a great deal of pagan philosophy as well, but though this was useful in providing, awkwardly I think, intellectual support for Christianity I doubt it contributed much to its spread). Christmas itself is evidence of this assimilation, as its celebration consists in great part of the customs of the Roman Saturnalia and the northern European Yule. The date chosen for the celebration of Jesus' birth, of course, is the traditional date of the birth of Sol Invictus and other gods associated with the Winter Solstice
Second, its ruthless and relentless suppression of all other religious beliefs after Christians acquired control of the Roman imperial government, including suppression of Christian variants deemed heretical once orthodoxy was established (I mean those popular before the Reformation). In short, it profited from its intolerance.
Third, zealous commitment to its spread among non-Christians (the missionary impulse), sometimes by force of arms.
Fourth, the appeal of a religion which promised forgiveness of sins, thus providing hope that salvation was possible regardless of wrongs committed during life.
Which tells us something about successful institutional religion and ourselves, I think; none of it inspiring or attractive.
Comments (139)
But really, remember screenwriter William Goldman’s saying, “No one knows anything,” to account for the lack of knowledge about why some films are hits and others are not. You can probably apply the same idea to religions and cults: some succeed and continually adapt to speak to the culture, while others lose momentum and fail. We don't always know why but seem to enjoy retro fitting explanations.
Would you also say there are positive aspects introduced by Christianity that greatly appealed to people? Some of the messages in the Gospels, for instance, might have resonated widely. A religion that venerates the powerless and the poor might also account for some of its traction.
One also needs to remember that a religion becoming global and powerful is not that unusual, take Islam (which is roughly 6 centuries younger) which is not far behind in terms of popularity. Islam is faster growing too. This may be a function of birth rate.
Julian the Apostate credited Christians with their care of the poor, and thought it part of their appeal. During his brief time as Emperor he thought of trying to organize similar relief on behalf of pagan divinities.
A favorite of mine.
But is charity enough to explain its success? I doubt that.
Hmmmn, any redemptive features after that list of bad things...?
Does that call for a justification to match a condemnation? There is an abundance of that sort of thing about. We are not in a great place to set up scales of that sort.
I figure the idea of a personal conscience is worthy, however much or little it came about because of the history of Christianity.
A Daimonion?
I think that expresses an aspect of it.
But perceiving what comes from actions is another thing. Conflicts of motivation.
To even begin to understand the true meta-reality and dynamic we must first go back to time immemorial. Before the first line of written or recorded history. Perhaps even before the first cave painting. We must go back to a time when the first men realized he was a man, a unique being set apart from his surroundings, who realized not only what pain was, but what death was. Non-existence. To see a fellow member of his commune, who he would laugh and smile at, who would bring him joy, who he would remember from day to day, perhaps even dreaming of. Bear in mind, no proper or structured, established language is required to achieve any of this. And one day, that man he endeared, his friend, was dead before him. He did not move. He could not speak. He was simply, inanimate. And during this first "acknowledgement of death", is what ironically gave man his first life. His first glimpse into his own mortality. That one day, or perhaps if not careful (before we accepted the truth that yes all of us will one day perish), we could die too. It was this revelation that spurred man onto an endless quest for immortality. This spawned all forms of medicine, healing, therapy, and other cruxes of self-care that came after.
It was then we had an enemy. It's name was Death. It came in many forms, and could strike at any hour. Perhaps a wild animal. Perhaps an outsider criminal to pillage and plunder so as to avoid his own Death. No matter what, this was when it occurred. This is the backstory.
Some time later, men realized, he could not physically defeat Death. Every thing you create, every life, a child, every person you know and rely on, a father, uncle, or brother, will one day be devoured by this still-unknown monster we call "Death." It made life not worth living. Why struggle when there's no true reason? And from this question, came (what atheists consider False Motivation, and what theists consider) Truth.
Suddenly the idea of a soul. An afterlife. An eternity that is not bound by the primal savageries and unpredictabilities of this world became more important than life itself. For how could it not? True or not, it gave what no man ever could. Eternal life. This my friends, is the story of all modern religion.
Quoting Banno
Meh, this seems sort of non-genuine. Charity existed before Christianity, obviously. Not like the first person to ever give someone something outside of trade or favor first occurred after 33 A.D.
It's about restraint, humility, submission to a larger plan no man can ever understand, and therefore can never take away. Not really. To not be afraid of those who can and will take your life, but to be strong in the face of these adversaries knowing you have something no man can ever take, a soul created by God. You become untouchable. Outside of the damage of any word or swing of a blade. Sure, your flesh can die. All flesh will die one day. But after all flesh and even this world dies, there will remain God, and if you choose to embrace this, you yourself.
Obviously you can just point to "oh no the idea of an afterlife and living after death is as old as society itself", sure. But none seemed to have succeeded in proliferating such on such a wide, global scale. Surely you cannot deny that.
Not enough, no. I think there's no getting around the fact that Christianty benefited primarily from its acquisition of imperial authority, which ignored the destruction of the pagan past and then actively participated in it. Justinian closed the last of the philosophical schools of Athens, and after that there wasn't much left.
Of course. I was being charitable...
Check out any list of pagan virtues and you will not find charity.
I can't think of anything signifcantly redemptive that wasn't borrowed from pagan philosophy, especially that of Plato, the neo-platonists, the Stoics and Aristotle.
Mine is Marcus Tullius Cicero, of course. Ciceronianus sum, non Christianus
And so another question here might be the extent to which charity is a virtue...
I take your point about originality. I am not an apologist, in the many ways that may be understood.
Kierkegaard makes an interesting attempt at looking at innocence from a personal point of view. It is an instance where the report may be wrong. Explanation needs to be tested against experience.
Claude Levi-Strauss claimed that myth is about overcoming contradictions and opposites. In Christianity, death = birth. The meek shall inherit the earth. These stories resonate with people. Here's GK Chesterton's take, appropriate for the season:
This is improperly framing the argument, perhaps even misunderstanding the larger picture. Humanity is what does bad things when unrefined, untaught, and unyielded. To not mince words, all Christianity did is to try and make a terrible thing less terrible. And it did. Until it didn't. And even before then, even the most advanced garbage cans will still let out a stench every now and then. Sorry to be so blunt. That's what you're referring to. Human nature. Not the attempt to [s]control[/s] refine it that was Christian ideology. It was a noble attempt. And brought about everything you see and use today. It brought peace, if not fleeting and perhaps ironic, so that men could study in peace, so that men could control their petty, base, primal emotions so as not to respond with anger and non-restraint. Before Christianity, this was considered weakness. After, it was considered strength. The definition of a strong man with refined intellect and purpose. A being above a mere animal that was the current zeitgeist before. So, in fact, a resounding success by all intent and use of the word. So have a little respect, if not at least a little sense.
It was people ignoring the tenants of Christianity, "love thy neighbor". In short, as simple as it was. Much more simplified than Judaism. It was still too difficult for humanity. Which as pathetic as that may be, only points to a resignatory truth. Mankind is not good. It never was. And never will be. But it can be controlled. And so long as it is controlled, it can be permitted to exist (not be destroyed by higher beings, which you may or may not discover exist at some point, for it matters not). There is no other way around it.
To put it simply, when everything works right from a new system, it becomes a norm after a time. It's no longer appreciated. It no longer "does anything" but provide what we've so foolishly come to expect. See the hedonic treadmill. Low level people who never grew up. When your roof no longer leaks, now you'll focus on that horrible draft from the non-repaired window that keeps you up at night. When that's fixed, now you'll focus on that insufferable uneven table leg that makes every meal into a scene of impending doom.
This is obviously a large topic, but as a non-Christian I admire how the gospels teach correct socialization. I still remember teachings like "all who humble themselves will be exalted and all who exalt themselves will be humbled." I also love the advice Jesus tells his disciples when they go out into the world: "be as innocent as doves and as wise as serpents." They are simple but fruitful lessons to apply and pass on.
And of course they attached the entire Jewish bible to their canon.... with a few more books included until Luther took them out. Jesus as a character is fascinating and employs aspects of both Greco-Roman literature and Jewish lit.
I think this might be a cynical point-of-view, as far as the early spread of Christianity is concerned. I think the gospel of Jesus was embraced because it was the first egalitarian philosophy to reach the ears of the oppressed. Jesus was the first egalitarian, elevating the poor to an equal status with the upper levels. The promises were great, as can be seen by the 5th century poem, St. Patrick's Breastplate:
[i]I arise today
Through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity,
Through belief in the Threeness,
Through confession of the Oneness
of the Creator of creation.
I arise today
Through the strength of Christ's birth with His baptism,
Through the strength of His crucifixion with His burial,
Through the strength of His resurrection with His ascension,
Through the strength of His descent for the judgment of doom.
I arise today
Through the strength of the love of cherubim,
In the obedience of angels,
In the service of archangels,
In the hope of resurrection to meet with reward,
In the prayers of patriarchs,
In the predictions of prophets,
In the preaching of apostles,
In the faith of confessors,
In the innocence of holy virgins,
In the deeds of righteous men.
I arise today, through
The strength of heaven,
The light of the sun,
The radiance of the moon,
The splendor of fire,
The speed of lightning,
The swiftness of wind,
The depth of the sea,
The stability of the earth,
The firmness of rock.
I arise today, through
God's strength to pilot me,
God's might to uphold me,
God's wisdom to guide me,
God's eye to look before me,
God's ear to hear me,
God's word to speak for me,
God's hand to guard me,
God's shield to protect me,
God's host to save me
From snares of devils,
From temptation of vices,
From everyone who shall wish me ill,
afar and near.
I summon today
All these powers between me and those evils,
Against every cruel and merciless power
that may oppose my body and soul,
Against incantations of false prophets,
Against black laws of pagandom,
Against false laws of heretics,
Against craft of idolatry,
Against spells of witches and smiths and wizards,
Against every knowledge that corrupts man's body and soul;
Christ to shield me today
Against poison, against burning,
Against drowning, against wounding,
So that there may come to me an abundance of reward.
Christ with me,
Christ before me,
Christ behind me,
Christ in me,
Christ beneath me,
Christ above me,
Christ on my right,
Christ on my left,
Christ when I lie down,
Christ when I sit down,
Christ when I arise,
Christ in the heart of every man who thinks of me,
Christ in the mouth of everyone who speaks of me,
Christ in every eye that sees me,
Christ in every ear that hears me.
I arise today
Through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity,
Through belief in the Threeness,
Through confession of the Oneness
of the Creator of creation.[/i]
I do not have your confidence regarding historical necessity.
For that reason, I don't want to suggest I am arguing against your thesis.
He wrote “the Princess Bride,” both the movie and the book. I like both very much. He also wrote a lot of other famous screenplays. the movie is wonderful, but it’s so is the book.
You express your opinions as solid facts. Is that true? Do you have extensive knowledge that backs it up or is it just your surmise?
Christianity combined Greek philosophy with Jewish law and order. The God of the Old Testament is rarely omnipotent or omniscient. He often is surprised by his people (hardly demonstrating omniscience). He seems to want to favorably compare Himself to competing Gods ("You shall have no other Gods before me").
He is also often masterful and poetic, even when He is tormenting Job he trenchantly asks him,
“Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
6 On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone—
7 while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels[a] shouted for joy?"
The New Testament God sends His only son to save mankind (although we might ask, "Who was it that set us up to fail?") Jesus represented God as philosophical - but not in the Greek, logical way. Instead, He is a story-teller, and a myth-maker. Ethics, for Him and for Christians, is not logical, but analogical. "What would Jesus do?"
So Christianity combined Jewish law with Greek philosophy, and added an analogical touch.
I think of Saint Francis, who also preached the value and dignity of the poor, although about 1000 years after Saint Patrick. I always got the impression that his beliefs were considered very close to heresy.
I think it is really important to distinguish those who embrace Christianity in a true following of Jesus and those who would use it for political gains.
The gospels make an interesting study, particularly if you take into account the gnostic gospels, which depict Jesus in an entirely different light. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, for example, depicts a young Jesus using his powers to kill and curse those who offend him, blinding neighbors of Joseph and Mary when they complain about his behavior, and magically doing other things while learning to control his powers. Being gnostic, they involve the teaching of secret knowledge you don't find in the canonical gospels. There are admirable teaching in those gospels, but it seems clear that the Jesus they describe is a persona developed over many years, and he was depicted as very different from the Jesus of the Canon by those who considered themselves Christian.
Just what Jesus actually taught isn't all that clear, I think, and may depend on what one reads, bearing in mind that the evidence indicates that what we have to read was written long after he lived and so couldn't have been written by someone who actually knew him and heard what he said.
I mean, people are miserable. Show me a person more successful (even barely and mildly) and I'll be able to show you a trail of people who don't like him for any reason but that itself. And that's just literally right now, in the here and now when the person is living and can actually defend themself from false accusation. When people aren't raised right, born without proper planning into a loving and well-equipped financially-planned household, you end up with a POS. That's just how it is. That's how it's always been, and that's how it is today. You can literally look it up and prove it right now for yourself. People lie. They do this for evolutionary benefit, even if that benefit is merely to drag another much superior person down to their own level, at least in their own transient momentary mindset.
Improperly raised people ultimately hate themselves. They merely project this hate unto figures who aren't hated. Why do famous people have body guards? Because miserable do what miserable people do, they lie, and often believe their own lies. I dare you. I double dog dare you. To walk around the city in gold chains and high end clothing. Just for 30 minutes. Actually, I take that back. Because it will likely be your own death sentence. People are jealous of those more successful or who otherwise not make them question their life choices, but flat out prove they made the wrong ones. Look into the death of Socrates for crying out loud. The average person lives vicariously, we all do. When our favorite sports team wins who bears the city name we either hail from or live currently in, we feel like we won something we never could ourselves. But if those EXACT SAME PEOPLE were wearing the opposite jersey, it'd be like armed robbery of our sense of well-being and purpose. This is proof enough of humanity's own inadequacy to self-govern.
It's what revenge is. People who destroy their own legacy (not that there was really one to begin with) will gladly pass that accomplishment off to anyone who they didn't happen to like at the time. Clinically ill paranoia. If there's no devil around, we'll create one ourselves. 100%. Never fails. Anything to shift the blame off our poor life choices. There are 8 billion human beings alive. And only a few hundred thousand of them are true, mature actual adult human beings. Guaranteed. And even that's a high estimate. We never grow up, we do things that convince our lower self, our primal sense we have. All in vain.
Well, I think it's been established that the pagan mystery cults included the equivalent of baptism, a communal meal, promises of rebirth, salvation and eternal life. The pagan origins of Christmas traditions is well attested. think it's clear Christian thinkers relied a great deal on pagan philosophy. I think the destruction of pagan temples by Christians and the persecution of pagans by Christian Emperors is well documented. Missionary zeal and it's impact on indigenous peoples and religious beliefs is fairly well known. The doctrine of forgiveness of sins is something I'm familiar with as an old Catholic.
I make inferences from such things, certainly.
First, I think you are actually arguing against Christianity as an institution, not the religion. I can't disagree with you on the fact that Christendom got a lot of influence when it became the main religion of the Christian Empire. Also, it was very relevant when it started to spread around the "pagan" territories of the Rus (what is now Russia and Ukraine). They quickly erased their polytheism and then started to build churches and establish Christianity as the real and only dogma. There are books written by Mircea Cartarescu about this; they are very good and intriguing. I recommend them to you.
On the other hand, it is relevant to remark on the words of Kazantzakis when he did a pilgrimage to the Sinai Desert: Christianity is both too optimistic and too boring.
I think K's reflection on how Christianity works can help us to understand why it had much success in the world when it appeared to be a complex way of thinking in the beginning. Another example written by Kazantazakis: he is with a Greek Orthodox priest in a monastery, and then K asked him, brother what does God look like to you? And then the priest answered,God is in the eyes and the smile of every child. Kazantzakis got upset at such an ambiguous answer, and he replied back, saying, [i]Isn't God supposed to be a flame that you can be burned by if you touch it?[/I]
Perhaps this is why it had much success. It is too optimistic for the reasons you expressed, but it is also "boring" in the sense that it doesn't encourage people to actually think in another way; it is repetitive and based on dull ceremonies (baptism, marriage, funeral), which makes its impact easier. Back in the day we had other ways of behaving when someone died. Now you know what we have to do because it was well established for the past 2,000 years.
Quoting Tom Storm
I am just the son of Mary of Joseph. - Jesus in [I]The Last Temptation[/I] by Kazantzakis. :smile:
Notice that perhaps he never said he was the Son of God.
I would say that even to the extent there is agreement, he wasn't a philosopher, at least not in the sense his near contemporary Philo was, or others considered philosophers at the time.
All major religions are like that.
If anything, the reason for the success of Christianity doesn't seem to have anything to do with Christianity per se, it's just that at the time and place, there was/is no other religion to fill the niche. The niche was/is calling for a religion that is authoritarian, hierarchical, compatible with slavery, feudalism, and capitalism. All major religions can fill that nichem (and they do so, in their respective locations), it's just a question of coincidence which one will arrive in a particular geographic location first.
I don’t find this entirely plausible of an account of the fundamental spreading of Christianity because Christianity was built off of violently peaceful martyrdom (although later on it got pretty violent I do admit). For example, the apostles died gruesome deaths and Christianity was heavily and brutally persecuted throughout the early church. It wasn’t even legalized until 313 A.D.; and even all the way into the 600s A.D. Christians were still heavily persecuted by Muslims, such as the Coptic Orthodox Church tattooing their kids on the wrist so they would know they were Christian if they were kidnapped from their parents or their parents were murdered. It was also forced in some cases as a form of branding to discriminate more easily.
You are right, though, that there was a lot more intolerance by Christianity of other faiths than we have now in liberal times to be fair.
This seems, to me, like a basic tenant of any successful movement. Zealotry is necessary aspect of spreading the ideology: an ideology that doesn’t believe their ideas are worth spreading becomes a stagnant pool of dirty water.
I feel like this should be inspiring to us all: I am not sure why you would consider this not “inspiring or attractive”. Christianity is uniquely the only religion where God is so merciful and loving that He comes down to us out of genuine concern for us: all other religions place God as this being way above us that it would be beneath Him to care about us in any personal way—let alone die for us.
Because of this, it gives a unique view that we can achieve union with God through God’s mercy; and not by the super rare chance of doing everything right to make it. Why is this uninspiring to you (even if you don’t believe it is true)?
Persecution of Christians in the Empire before Constantine was sporadic and local. Nero's efforts were limited to the city of Rome, for example. Persecution was seldom organized or pursued throughout the Empire. I'm afraid the persecution was vastly exaggerated by Hollywood.
In fact, Christians were notorious for their eagerness for martyrdom. Tertullian actually boasted of this death wish. He wrote of an incident when a crowd of Christians accosted a Roman magistrate and demanded he kill them. The annoyed magistrate told them that if they wanted to die so badly they could find rope to hang themselves or throw themselves off a handy cliff, but he wouldn't accommodate them.
The doctrine of forgiveness of sin provides a method to avoid responsibility. Why be virtuous when you can always be absolved on request?
I don't agree with Cice's claim that people lust after being forgiven upon request. NO sophisticated Christian would be motivated by that. It's not the "request" that saves -- it's the grace of God who judges the souls of men. I say this as a confirmed atheist. I object to my fellow travelers offering shallow critiques of the religion which (for us Westerners) has shaped our culture and values.
Hmmm ... I think all religious people are looking to religion for something divine beyond this trying world, and religion provides them with that. All of the major religions promise something greater beyond this mortal existence, whether it is salvation and eternal life, or enlightenment and liberation from suffering, or bodily resurrection and purification, or escape from the cycle of rebirth ... and always some sort of unification with the their God.
Well, I hardly said that people lust after being forgiven on request. What a peculiar thing to say! I don't envision them achieving orgasm on actually being forgiven, either. But perhaps, for reasons unclear to me, you interpreted my suggestion people would find forgiveness of sin attractive to refer to physical attraction.
Here's how confession worked, in the old days. You entered the confessional, asked the priest to bless you, for you had sinned. You advised the priest how long it had been since your last confession. You described your sins. You were told your sins would be forgiven provided you sincerely repented and said certain prayers. [i]Ego te absolvo peccatis tuis in nomine Patris, et Filii et Spiritus Sancti/i] are the priestly words of absolution on behalf of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, rendered in Latin. That was the way of it.
In the Catholic tradition, one could obtain remission of temporal punishment for sins through prayer or good conduct. They're called indulgences.
Do you imagine that those who ask for their sins to be forgiven do so but then don't believe they've been forgiven until they've received some divine communication confirming absolution?
History is full of examples of Christians being assured their sins will be forgiven ( for example, for going on a Crusade or pilgrimage).
By the way, I'm no fellow traveler of yours. Neither an atheist nor a theist.
In the 9th Century, if you wanted to see a library, a school, some sort of hospital, you'd need to go to the local monastery. The monastery was built like a fortress in a world where buildings weren't built to last, and they didn't last due to the workings of the economy. Semi-nomadic warlords destroyed things for a living and paid their troops with the loot. It was the clergy who appealed to the warlords to give Europe a break and go wreak havoc in the holy land. And when these crusades resulted in a larger Greek presence in Europe, it was the clergy who welcomed their knowledge. Only the clergy could read and write.
Everything around you was built on their shoulders. I'm sure you have some snarky comment to make about that. I don't give a shit.
Nor do I, in fact. But you might wonder why Europe came to be in the condition you describe, and why the "larger Greek presence" (pagan) was so welcome in Europe, after centuries of ignorance.
I think it's because Rome was repeatedly sodomized by its enemies until it laid down and died.
Could be. It was a regular practice in the monasteries founded by the descendants of those barbarian tribes.
Certainly some were wise. I don't know if we can call them effective, given the conduct of most professed Christians.
Benedict was Italian. :cool:
"Lust" can refer (metaphorically) to a spiritual desire as well as a physical one.
I don't know what people "believe" -- and neither do you. I'd guess many Catholics confess as a ritual act, and have no firm belief one way or another. And many Crusaders wanted their earthly debts forgiven, rather than their spiritual ones (as well as seeking earthly riches in the Holy Land).
What I was objecting to is your earlier claim that Christianity was attractive because on the ease with which one can attain salvation. But "narrow is the way" that leads to salvation; "easy is the way that leads to destruction." Isn't the "fear of God" a Christian principle?
IN addition, reductionist, psychological explanations for the spread of a complicated, many-faceted cultural occurrence tend to lack explanatory value. Although Christianity probably offered comfort to some, it offered distress to many others (who thought they were damned). Yet it flourished. I'd suggest the explanations that offer more understanding are cultural: political, mythological, and societal. Paul fought with James the Just (Jesus' brother) because he ignored the historical Jesus in his interest in the Myth of Christ. Yet it was he, more than any other disciple, who founded Christianity.
Quite true.
What conduct? As far as human misconduct goes, I'm not certain that Christians were responsible for the worst of it - far from.
We're talking about Christianity, though. Are you really asking for an account of wrongful conduct by professed Christians?
You don't seem to understand just how new Separation of Church from State really is or what that means. Do you realize that means? Before 200 years ago, you were raised to believe in whatever god or commandments said god requires, similar to how you are raised to know 1 + 1 = 2 today. Is your understanding of your own human history really so divorced from how things were not that long ago? There was no "other religion" to join, whatever religion there was, was simply all you knew.
I'm not sure what your point may be, sorry.
Ok. I don't quarrel with the qualifier "some."
I would go so far as to say that the remarkable Paul of Tarsus was more responsible for the founding of Christianity than anyone, including Jesus.
My OP was intended to be a summary of the factors I think most contributed to Christianity's success. I don't contend no other factors were involved.
After he created us by default such that we only deserve to suffer for all eternity.
He first fucks us up, and then offers us some conditional salvation, resting on picking the right religion. That's "concern for us"? In what world is this "concern for us"?
Sure, but those religions also don't expect people to believe that God, in his infinite wisdom and goodness (!!) created humans in such a way that they deserve nothing but eternal sufferring.
How is it an act of infinite wisdom and goodness to create living beings who by default deserve only eternal suffering?
I don't find that "inspiring". Of course, your ilk are going to tell me that there is something wrong with me ...
I think that's a widely held view these days.
Quoting Ciceronianus
What is the intention of an OP like this? Is it simply that Christmas time has you pondering, or is it an opportunity to reflect on the idea that major religions spread through politics and terror rather than the efficacy of their beliefs?
For those of us in Australia, we look on incredulously at the apparent religiosity in your homeland.
I often think of that HL Mencken quip from the 1920's - "Heave an egg out a Pullman window, and you will hit a fundamentalist anywhere in the United States."
I suspect that even with all that institutional power and the canny absorption of other faiths, a religion is unlikely to endure and thrive unless it genuinely meets some psychological or social need. Coercion may explain expansion but I'm not sure it accounts for long-term persistence, or meaning for adherents.
For those who are not Christians, like me, it is often difficult to understand why the faith resonates so strongly and what hold it has on people. We tend to look to cold facts of history and politics for an explanation, but perhaps the reasons run deeper than that.
Good response by the magistrate.
Yes, it's typical for religious/spiritual people to be eager to play the victim. It's a defining characteristic of religiosity/spirituality.
It makes them feel superior to the outgroup and makes them feel justified to destroy the outgroup.
Just as it is "wise and effective" for lions to hunt antelopes.
Sure, they occasionally forget their doctrinal tenets or stray from them ... But the ideal has always been supremacy.
This belittles the point: Christian’s were brutally persecuted throughout the early church.
~60 A.D.: Nero burned them alive as a source of light in his gardens; disguised them as animals to be thrown to wild dogs; etc.
~80 A.D.: Domitian was very harsh on Christians. Most notably putting St. John the Evangelist in boiling oil and exiling St. John the Apostle (after which he wrote the Book of Revelation).
~160 A.D.: During Marcus Aurelius’ reign, albeit it not directly his fault, Christianity was widely persecuted.
Etc.
The problem is that you are belittling Christian persecution because it was not oftentimes incredibly centralized to the highest government. Christian’s widely had to meet in secret, were executed for their faith, blamed for every problem with rome, etc.
You make it sound like they were begging romans to kill them: that’s simply not true. Tertullian encouraged Christians to endure persecution—up to and including death—for the faith [i]because of the horrific persecution that was going on. He wrote in the Apologeticum:
(https://www.tertullian.org/works/apologeticum.htm)
You are twisting history into this phantom of rome where Christian’s lived normal lives most of the time but had this fetish for martyrdom; and that is simply ahistorical.
This would be a fair point IF asking for forgiveness was repentance. You seem to be under the completely false impression that if you simply ask of the Jesus to forgive you that you are forgiven: that’s not the historical view. In Catholicism, our salvation is caused (1) meritoriously by Christ’s sacrifice, (2) efficiently by God’s grace, and (3) instrumentally through our participation in God’s grace. This means that sola fide should be fides caritate formata: love is works and faith. We are saved by our genuine love for God and our participation in the Sacraments to elevate and maintain a state of sanctified grace.
Doing a sin with the intention of immediately repenting afterwards is itself a sin requiring repentance; and it is a mortal sin since it (1) has grave matter, (2) was intentional, and (3) had full knowledge. To be clear, this means that in your scenario here where someone avoids trying to be the best person they can be for God’s glory because “they will get saved anyways through repentance” will go to hell.
The divine right of kings mirrors God's rule in heaven. But if coercive force is a bad thing, mustn't utopia be an anarchy? Heaven and Hell suffer from the same flaw: autocratic rule.
I find the period during which the Roman Empire transitioned from a largely tolerant polytheistic society to an intolerant monotheistic society fascinating. For the most part, Rome didn't much care what gods were worshipped provided no threat was made, perceived or otherwise, against it or public order. Similarly, the devotees of pagan religions didn't insist that others worship only a particular god, nor did they much care what gods they worshipped.
For example, initiates in one pagan mystery cult were often initiates in another cult.
Jews and Christians were different, however. Their religious beliefs were exclusive and intolerant. The Romans had an odd regard for the Jews and their ancient, tribal god for a time. The Herods were clients of Rome. But when the Jews tried to throw off Roman rule (twice) the response was terrible.
Also, there was sometimes religious violence between Jews and Greeks in cities like Alexandria. The belief that one's own personal god is the only God and all others false seems to encourage repression and violence.
The Christian desire that everyone should worship Jesus and insistence that they do so and should be compelled to worship no other gods far exceeded that of the Jews, however. It eventually lead to the destruction of pagan world, though that world survived in certain ways through the Christian assimilation of certain pagan religious traditions, and sometimes even pagan gods via the cult of the saints.
I wonder how and why this enormous alteration in the ancient world took place.
All ancient civilizations exhibited religious tolerance (except the Jews). If you traveled to another region of the known world, your first task was to find the local temple and pay homage to their gods. The Romans were like everyone else in this.
Isaac Asimov said that the Jews invented religious intolerance and became the world's first victims of it in the 6th Century BCE when the Babylonians invaded and specifically attempted to destroy Judaism. Christianity inherited this preoccupation with truth. You're supposed to realize that the gods you've been worshiping aren't real. And Northern Europeans did realize that. The destruction of paganism didn't happen at the end of a Roman sword. The pagans destroyed their own culture(s). They burned it all.
What position is the person in who says about another person “it makes them feel superior?”
That doesn’t seem right. Pots and kettles scrapping for the superiority of their color.
How do you measure success to a Christ hung and bled to death on a cross in the public square? You have to account for Christ at least a bit when you ask about Christians. Christ is the message. Christ is what Christianity is. Not human history.
“feel superior” - how many times did Christ implore anyone who would follow him to serve, to never desire to be first or greatest? The night before he died he washed the dirty feet of his students.
Feel superior - that’s soft analysis of the legacy of Jesus Christ, if you ask me.
Quoting baker
For the first approximately 300 years (that’s 3 centuries) how many Christians felt superior then?
Seems like a solid foundation in humility to me. Not supremacy at all. Christ was God, and he never did anything but what his father told him to do, unto death, on a cross, at the hands of we pigs and rats. Find the superiority over others in that!
What is the “success” of Christianity, anyway?
The fact that so many people call themselves Christian? Is that the bar for success?
If it is some sort of worldly dominance, or numbers game on converts, that’s worldly, that comes and goes, that’s petty. That’s not Christian success, if you hear what the gospel preaches. That’s stuff for people who count stuff as “success”. Christ didn’t count such things.
My understanding of a Christian success would be sainthood. How many saints do you think there are? Having met many people in my life, I suspect not many. Who gets to judge the most successful religion now?
But my straight answer, talking history or psychology, Christianity is the most widespread through history and across the globe because it is the most practical (easy rules) and welcoming of all religions, calling sinners first and foremost (so every single soul is wanted). And my answer talking theology is that the success is mostly because God wants it that way. The success of Christianity is more proof of the existence of the Holy Spirit in the world, working through history, despite all of our competing earthly “success” stories.
Regarding the exaggerated accounts of persecution of Christians by the Roman Empire, you might consider reading The Myth of Persecution by Candida Moss, Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at the University of Notre Dame.
The saint supposedly thrown into boiling oil also supposedly lept out of the cauldron unharmed, miraculously. I don't think such stories very credible. Just who wrote the Book of Revelation is a matter of some dispute.
Tertullian in Ad Scapulam, Chapter 5, wrote of all the Christians in the province of Asia presenting themselves to Gaius Arrius Antoninus at his judgment seat, and his comment to them: "O miserable men, if you wish to die, you have precipices or halters." Tertullian seemed to be arguing that Roman cruelties to Christians was their glory, and that Christians "even invite their infliction."
I think knowing that your sins will be forgiven if, sometime in the future, you really, really repent and seek forgiveness renders wrongdoing of less significance now. It's not that you intentionally do wrong because that option exists, it's that doing wrong becomes something there is less need to avoid if the fear of divine punishment is what keeps you from sinning. Ideally, one should be virtuous for the sake of being virtuous.
Do you think 1,000 years ago anyone listening to the things human beings do casually now would take such accounts credible? Communicating with people all across the world in 2 seconds? Exploring the depths of the ocean for hours even days or longer at a time? Traveling in a flying ship carrying hundreds of people across lengths that used to take months in a manner of hours? Visiting or otherwise landing on a planetary body, even one as close as the Moon?
Honestly. Know thyself.
Then you may as well classify any societal human endeavor as "lions hunting antelope".
You raise some fascinating questions. Have you encountered any decent books that have explored this theme in a useful way?
Let me try to answer your central question:
What explains the success of Christianity?
1. High universality for its time – Christianity's ability to explain various areas.
2. High productivity – Christianity's ability, once accepted as the norm, to generate new, logically necessary, non-trivial consequences that could not be derived from previous experience.
One I found interesting is The Final Pagan Generation: Rome's Unexpected Path to Christianity by Edward Watts. One I'm beginning to read that looks promising is Christendom: The Triumph of a Religion, AD 300-1300 by Peter Heather.
Are “compulsion to worship no other gods” and “assimilation of certain pagan traditions” a bit at odds? There was the Inquisition, and its coercion, but that was not close to assimilation. (And that wasn’t Christlike or Christian, so should account for any “success” of Christianity.)
Quoting Astorre
That makes sense. And it explains Christianity’s ability to assimilate new people’s traditions. Christians came to a new culture, sought what was universally good in it and in its people, and found what was good about that culture’s relationship to the divine, and thereby found the universal spirit of their one God already working in that new culture. Assimilation was growth for everyone.
Quoting Astorre
You are talking about high productivity of ideas. I agree, and would link that eventually to the production of universities. And notice the word “universal” in the university. (And the word Catholic means universal as well.)
I would also add charity in deeds is very productive and convincing of would be converts. Seeing a new priest share his only loaf of bread with family, or teaching the poor to read - that draws people together. And led to the eventual production of hospitals.
People are quick to equate religion with so many ascetic rules and with earthly-looking power structures. And they equate its spread with earthly tactics of spreading earthly ideologies, including coercion and psychological tricks. But Christianity was always different as it requires freedom to achieve its ends. The core Christian message is that God is trying to bring us to know and love him. There is no such thing as knowing someone or loving someone without their free, honest willingness. This in itself is more universally appealing.
Christianity democratized human value, not to each other, but to a God who loves each one.
In my view, it is easy to see why Christianity spread so far and wide.
I agree with your assertion. Moreover, I'd like to point out that the question itself is already posed within the paradigm of "why did this ideology take off," rather than, for example, "is Christianity a doctrine of love?"
Fair. I just think that without a sound, basic understanding of what Christianity is, one won’t be looking in the right places for how and why it succeeds. So I’m volunteering my understanding of what Christianity is.
It’s like wondering why the core tenants of the US constitution took off and proliferated in various forms in so many newly formed nations - if one asks why, but sees the US itself as only a colonialist, racist, freedom crushing, economically enslaving, exploitative land of uneducated cult members, then you probably won’t understand why it’s constitution became so appealing. One needs to look at the lives of the people in the US that flourished to explain why the US flourished, and why its constitutional inventions allowed for that flourishing. One needs to honestly categorize the poor US citizen, or even the US prisoner, and their station in relation to the rest of the world’s citizens and the rest of history to judge the success of the US. One wouldn’t be anything more than astonished by the success of the US if it’s constitution was merely a new mask for tyranny and crowd control.
Why does Christianity appeal to anyone? That may be enough of the answer for why it was so successful. And the answer to why it is appealing has to include some information about what it is (at least what it is to that person) (and once you dig into what Christianity is, you need to at least ask “who is Christ” and “what is His message”). And my suggestion for what Christianity is to most insiders has to do with living lives of love, charity, service, and seeking knowledge. These qualities draw non-Christians to Christianity without any effort of the Christian to convert anyone. These qualities build stronger individuals and communities. So it’s inherent appeal spread itself, and it survived/flourished by design of what it is.
I think the assimilation served to support the spread of Christianity, because due to it, what was found attractive about pagan gods and worship became part of Christianity.
Christian saints took on characteristics of pagan gods (sometimes, they were given the same or very similar names). The titles given the Virgin Mary were the same given to Isis in the Greco-Roman version of that goddess' worship. Depictions of Mary with infant Jesus are comparable to depictions of Isis with the infant Horus.
The cult of Mithras caused the early Church Fathers such concern that Tertullian and Justin Martyr claimed that devils had learned Jesus was coming and parodied Christian sacraments in the Mithraic rituals.
There was a lot of mixing of religious beliefs going on.
In Christianity, we reap what we sow; and only those that on their demerits will they go to hell. What you have done is omitted justice from the discussion and straw manned Christianity with the idea that everyone should go to hell despite having sinned or not.
Likewise, it is up for debate what exactly ‘suffering’ is like in hell. The popular view in present day is that hell is just a maximally distant place from God—from goodness itself—and those who deserve to be there tend to want to to be there by obstinately rejecting goodness itself. Think of Satan as an embodiment of this: he was a high-ranking archangel with solid knowledge of God’s goodness, and he rejected in favor of his own autonomy—to be his own god.
God didn’t cause us to fall: adam and eve did and we suffer the consequences—but not guilt—of their sin.
It has to be conditional to be just. If you do not want to be saved, for example, then it would be unjust to force you to be saved: that would violate your free will and autonomy to choose what is good or evil. God’s plan is the perfect synthesis of justice and mercy—not one at the expense of the other.
This isn’t true, and is a common misunderstanding among areligious and even some religious people. There is a Divinely revealed and guaranteed way to end up saved (which is the Sacraments); but this does not mean that anyone not on that path is going to hell.
It is hard to say exactly how perfect justice works and how that mixes with perfect mercy; but we can plausible say some things about it. For one, what fundamentally justifies a person before God, in light of Christ’s sacrifice, is their love of God. This is fides formata; and this love is of God, which can be sought after and acquired through reasoning about the natural world and natural law. A person does not have to accept formally a particular religion to love God in the sense of loving goodness itself in subsistent being (which is what God is). We come from many different backgrounds, with different IQs, with different obligations, with different cultures, etc. and justification gets very nuanced; however, the guaranteed and normal path to salvation is the Sacraments. If someone were to understand this sufficiently and reject participating in the Sacraments, then they do not really love God; but a person, for example, that doesn’t sufficiently understand this could still, given other factors, love God.
You are straw manning traditional Catholicism with an oversimplification of ‘picking the right religion’.
I would like to ask you why you believe that Christianity teaches that we deserve only eternal suffering by merely being born human: that’s not the traditional nor a predominant view.
I don’t think there is anything wrong with you: I think that if I understood your background and what you have come to know and why you have come to believe it that I would completely understand why you believe it as true (although it is false).
It is widely accepted as John the Apostle; and this is the official church teaching.
This is wildly false, and I don’t mean to insinuate that you are being disingenuous. What it says is:
What he is referring to is that Christians should not back down, but rather embrace, suffering in the name of Christ—all the way up to death; and this not the same as trying to find ways to die for Christ when it simply isn’t there.
If you read the above, full quote of Chapter 5; it clearly outlines that Arrius was executing some of those Christians and so they all banded together in solidarity as a statement to say “hey, if you want to execute Christians, here we all are: we have no master but God Himself”. This is not the same as randomly approaching a magistrate and begging him against his will to execute you.
That’s a sin, Ciceronianus. A proper Christian has the mentality you speak of of doing what is right because it is right.
This is true in Christianity. We follow God because He is perfect goodness; and to follow Him is to be virtuous for solely the sake of what is perfectly good. It is a sin to follow God in hopes of a reward; just as much as it is to avoid what is wrong to avoid punishment. It is better to avoid it for fear of God than to do it anyways; but it is not the right thing to do (ideally). A person who avoids what is wrong for sake of fear of punishment or does what is right for the sake of reward is a psychopath on a leash.
You might ask: why, then, is there hell and heaven? The rewards of heaven is just to be with God (viz., to live in a perfectly ordered world with a personal relationship with God and His church): there is no external reward to loving perfect goodness here (like giving a kid a lolipop for doing their chores). Similarly, hell is the absence of God; which is in-itself what is deserved by those who, at the very least, are deliberately unrepentant when they have sufficient knowledge of what is perfectly good (which is God).
It's odd that two people can interpret this selection of Tertullian so differently.
Tertullian was a lawyer. He's making an argument. That argument seems to be that Rome achieves nothing by persecuting Christians, because Christians thrive on persecution. Thus, "your cruelty is our glory." He says that in fact, Christians invite the inflicting of Roman cruelty
He says the entire Christian population of the province appeared before Arrius Antoninus "in one body" (not a particularly believable claim to begin with). He doesn't say any action was taken before that crowd arrived, but that upon their arrival a few were executed, and the others told that if they wanted to die, they should kill themselves. Why would Antoninus make the comment he made unless the Christians were, as Tertullian said, inviting persecution?
He also asks, rhetorically, what the Roman authorities will do if thousands of Christians similarly appear before them, also inviting persecution (I think that's the clear implication). I don't think any other interpretation is reasonable.
What is right to a Christian is what God demands, because what God demands is right, essentially by definition. I don't think what is right is dependent on the will or command of any god.
Your claim that hell is the absence of God is contrary to Scripture and tradition. For example, Revelation 21:8 says that as to the cowardly. the faithless, the detestable, murderers, the sexually immoral,, sorcerers and liars "their portion shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death."
That's the Catholic view:
Quoting here
There is no one Christian tradition. It's all over the place.
When I was in Catholic grade school, we'd be shown films displaying sinners writhing in flames. The Church has grown soft, it seems.
They were just trying to scare you.
Circeronianus, there is an obvious difference between seeking out martyrdom unnecessarily and owning your persecution. This is the difference between a black person randomly walking up to a white person and asking them to kill them; and black people showing up in protest willingly accepting any persecution, including death, that comes their way as a sign of rebellion.
Tertullian is absolutely right that Christian’s should embrace suffering and martyrdom for Christ; but that’s not what you were insinuating: Tertullian is not saying to go out of your way to try to find a way to die.
Are you thinking of protestantism? Divine Command Theory is not compatible with traditional Christianity (i.e., catholicism).
There have been several different interpretations of what hell is like, as I said before. Some think the fire of hell is just God’s love which is insufferable to those who hate God (since they flip evil for good and good for evil); some say it is a place if sensatory punishment; etc.
The Catholic view has not changed fundamentally: hell is the absence of God in a maximal sense. It can’t be completely separate from God since God is the very Subsistent Being which actively sustains the existence of everything; but God removes Himself maximally from the damned in hell. Viz.,: https://www.vatican.va/content/catechism/en/part_one/section_two/chapter_three/article_12/iv_hell.html .
In terms of Revelations or any Holy Scripture on hell, you can’t interpret it for yourself at face value of what you read: that’s sola scriptura type madness. The church has the authority to interpret scripture; and the official doctrine has always been, for roman catholics, that fire is symbolic (for many reasons). You have to remember, there is nothing quite like hell on this earth: we speak sometimes as if great suffering is like it; but we can’t really describe how tormenting it would be to be completely removed from God other than to exist. We are not as removed from God in this life as you probably think: God is from which all good flows.
There has been a shift in terms of the fiery imaginary; but that's a shift in the symbolic way to represent God's absence---not that hell is fundamentally different than what the church has been teaching.
Who wasn't?
Who isn't?
You are singling out the Christians in Rome as if everyone except the Christians had a great time and an easy life.
Or what are you saying? That it was okay for the Romans to treat everyone, including other Romans, poorly, but that they should have spared the Christians, and only the Christians?
I don't think it's possible to interpret Tertullian's statement that Christians "invite" the infliction of persecution
except by giving that word its normal meaning. To "invite" is to ask for, request or induce.
I don't think you can ignore the Biblical references to the fire and torment of hell or claim that they're not intended literally but rather metaphorically. Jesus himself makes reference to them. In Matthew 13:41-42 he says he'll send his angels to throw sinners and lawbreakers "into the fiery furnace." In Matthew 25:41 it's said he'll yell "those on his left" to depart from him into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
The Church may claim it has the authority to maintain that Jesus didn't really say such things or didn't mean them, but that leaves the door open to wholesale questioning of scripture, doesn't it? Unless you believe the Church has such authority. I wouldn't.
If you prefer to say that God is the standard of goodness, and there is no good outside of God, I don't think there's much difference between saying that and saying God determines what's good.
Eh?
You seem to be laboring under the assumption that feeling superior to others is somehow wrong, or that I am criticizing religious/spiritual people for feeling superior to others.
It's not and I don't. If anything, it's evolutionarily advantageous to feel superior to others.
The whole point of religion/spirituality seems to be to feel superior to others -- even if one is in the gutter, and especially when one is in the gutter. Or on the cross, as the case may be.
"Yes, I am poor and weak and ill, but I still know the truth about God!! And you don't!!"
I just did.
And let's get something straight: Make up your mind whether you want to be a proper monotheist, or a demigod worshipper.
If Jesus was indeed the Son of God, God incarnate, then the whole episode on the cross was a sham, a PR stunt: nobody actually died, nobody suffered, nothing, it was just an act, a play for some particular audience.
If, however, Jesus was an ordinary man, and was made divine only after the crucifiction, then he was only a demigod, not God proper, or an incarnation of God, which opens up a number of other problems.
So you'd say Christianity is not (particularly) successful?
If God exists, then everything is as God wants it anyway.
Are you the antelope?
How does one cope with being the antelope?
This is a topic I am very interested in, I started several threads on it.
It's a reasonable quesion.
I don’t think there is a single “Christianity” as such. There are multiple religions that use the title Christianity and often consider themselves to be the truer account. Which one of these is most successful? Or are they all successful?
So this behavior of Christians is not to be taken as exemplary of Christianity, and that behavior of Christians is not to be taken as exemplary of Christianity. But then what is? Why are we always supposed to make these exceptions and always look for ways to excuse Christians?
But there's a catch: We have only one lifetime to do it, and if we fail, that's it, hell, forever.
Under the pressure of only one lifetime for action, it becomes absurd. Even more absurd when one considers the possibility that one could die at any time.
How is it an act of "love" that God grants some people the privilege of being born and raised into a religion and thus never having to struggle with choosing a religion and joining it -- but witholds that privilege from others?
That's not love, that's sadistic perversion.
Quoting Astorre
What do you mean by "love"?
If you believe that someone deserves to die, to be killed (by you, even), and you spare them, is that an act of "love" on your part?
Of course. They've even killed eachother over who has the right understanding of God.
It seems part of Christianity's success is precisely its vagueness, its amoebic, shape-shfting identity. How its concepts mean everything and nothing, how it can go a million ways. How it's ungraspable.
Strawmanned? Eh?
Learn your doctrine.
Once born, we are said to bear the stain of the Original Sin, and this is enough to send us straight to eternal suffering.
Then they'll be happy!
That story would be silly if it weren't so cruel in its misrepresentation. Angels are incapable of even desiring autonomy.
And yet God made Adam and Eve.
These are all truisms that mean nothing until we clearly specifiy what exactly is "good" (and "evil").
Why, yes, indeed, according to the Catechism of the RCC, it's virtually impossible to go to hell.
However, the RCC is just one Christian denomination claiming to have the right understanding of God, among several thousand.
Again with the accusation of strawmanning! You don't say!
It's not a specifically Catholic view, sure. But I never claimed to be presenting or arguing against the Catholic view to begin with. That's your strawmanning. You should be sorry.
The view that God creates living beings who by default deserve only eternal suffering is the view with the most damning implications, and as such, it's the one that needs to be refuted or resolved, or overcome, or whatever.
Oh, and I should believe you, and not the other Christians. Right.
You Christians should first sort things out amongst yourselves before you go out to preach to others, blaming your confusion and lack of unity on others.
See this:
Quoting Bob Ross
This is Bob Ross feeling superior to me.
Twice he invents the charge of strawmanning against me, and he believes he knows The Truth About God while I don't.
This is the feeling superior to others that I'm talking about.
The Fall of the Roman Empire and the associated economic downturn seem to be part of a reasonable explanation.
Once people have to struggle for survival, the knives come out.
Quoting Ciceronianus
But not in a world where there is God.
In a world where there is God, everything is related to God and ordered (ie. put in order) by God, which is why virtue, too, has to be directly related to God, and not be something stand-alone.
I can see that.
Quoting baker
Seems to me that on a discussion forum feeling superior or better informed to the other person is a frequently occurring idea.
Maybe part of the issue is that people arrive here to defend positions.
The point was that it did not fruition through violent dominance as @Ciceronianus suggested.
That is simply false. Original Sin is distinct from personal sin; and does not carry with it guilt. See CCC 1:2:1:1:7:
-- (see here)
Original Sin affects us, as children of Adam and Eve, like a baby born damaged from their mother's smoking habit. We are not guilty of anything but we are subject to concupiscence due to being born without a state of grace. You do not go to hell because of Original Sin; but you are more likely to sin (personally) because of it.
This is also incorrect. An 'angel' is a being of pure form that is an absolutely unique form (viz., it is its own species); and each has the free will (being a substance of a rational nature) to choose to will in accord with their nature. Since they're unique form makes them what they are; if they choose to go against their nature that itself transforms them into another absolutely unique being, namely a unique demon. This is why demons are of each their own unique, fallen species and it is relative to what they were as an angel.
That doesn't make Him culpable for their free actions. That's like me deciding to have a son with my wife, my son grows up to be a serial killer, and you say "well that's your fault for having him in the first place".
Goodness is the equality of a thing's essence and esse; and badness (evil) is privation of goodness.
Catholicism, including Orthodox churches, is historical Christianity. Protestantism didn't come around until the 1500s; and most of its influential founders (like Luther) don't even believe the same things as modern Protestants. I am not interested in trying to defend every version of Christianity: proper Christianity is catholocism.
That is a straw man. Christianity, even in protestant thought, does not rest its ethics on 'picking the right religion'.
The vast majority of Christian denominations are incompatible with your claims about them. They are unfounded and incorrect. Sure, there is probably some protestants out there that have wild views; but Christianity has a traditional view that is held predominantly by Christians. I am not straw manning you by responding with the basic 101 views of standard Christianity (despite denomination).
For example:
Not a single mainstream version of Christianity believes this. Not one. I would be interested to hear why you believe this, though.
I don't feel superior to you; in fact, what you quoted of me was the exact opposite of what a person would say if they had a superiority complex. Being confident in one's views on a topic is not the same as feeling superior to others.
I'm sorry, but your views are patently straw mans of Christianity. No mainstream version of Christianity thinks that by default we go to hell; or that you merely 'pick the right religion' to go to heaven.
I don’t really have a dog in this fight. People have very idiosyncratic views about what Christianity stands for, both from within and outside the faith. The version I grew up with didn’t believe in a vindictive account of hell and saw it more as a gentle place of re-education or simply a state without God.
I'm not aware of any Christian tradition that guarantees hell for all. However, many mainstream Protestant faiths, especially fundamentalist literalists, do seem to embrace a hellfire-and-damnation view. I’ve certainly heard sermons claiming people will go to hell for being gay or for atheism, with warnings of “weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Some might even consider Protestant literalism a heresy (I think David Bentley Hart who I quite like, despite his sometimes being an arrogant shit, holds that view).
I would add that, upon closer examination, regarding the proposition of what is and is not hell or heaven. I wrote about this in one of the threads earlier.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/16096/the-origins-and-evolution-of-anthropological-concepts-in-christianity/p1
Sorry, but I didn't understand your question.
You don’t know how Bob feels. Unless Bob says or acts like “I am superior to you” then you have to make this judgment about how Bob feels from outside of Bob.
True/false judgments aren’t banishing people to hell, or inferiority.
Quoting baker
Feeling superior, that’s a short-coming. One can feel something and it not be true, like I am so happy I bet I could fly, so off the cliff I jump and then, dead - no evolutionary advantage to feeling superior or having any false feelings. I am not sure what you think, because you reduce Christianity to feeling superior, but then say the reduction is an evolutionary advantage. My opinion: feeling superior to fellow brothers and sisters is specifically something Christianity teaches against. Those who feel superior to others and compare themselves to others because they have been blessed to know God through Christ, don’t know God very well at all either, at least not who God is by seeing Christ. Me believing this and saying this means nothing as to who is superior. Me knowing God and still sinning makes me worse than the person who doesn’t know God and otherwise does what I do.
Christians who feel superior to non-Christian’s, like they are God’s elect, like they know who is NOT elect or who gets into heaven, don’t understand at least half the gospel. If that is what they really feel.
And a little boost of false superiority doesn’t equate to Christianity’s appeal across all cultures and ages, if you still think superiority matters to Christians.
Quoting baker
Don’t believe any Christian or anyone who tells you they know who is going to hell, or what hell is. All such things are up to God, and between God and the individual. Christ showed us the best way to follow him, but there is wisdom from the Hindu, from Buddha, from Moses, and many others - who are we to judge how God brings people to him and saves them from death.
Hell is something we make for ourselves. Eternal hell isn’t a punishment as much as it is a condition, and it is a condition we can only freely choose. There are no people thrown into hell on a technicality, or because they didn’t say enough Hail Mary’s. It’s up to God what “accepting Jesus Christ as your savior” means in practice. It’s up to an individual to see God face to face and reject Him or not. No one else besides you can know your own heart like God does. In between you and God is where heaven and hell exist. Be not afraid, or so superior to God that you can know He’s a sadistic pervert. Because God would die on a cross to reach out and make you see who he is. He just wants you to be an adult too, be good, and gives you power like He has over your own life and own choices, so you can add goodness to the universe yourself, like a gift that even God would be pleased with.
Piss on hell. Don’t be so anxious, or quick to judge God’s plan for our lives. Love is a good thing, and if we have to suffer for it, and in our suffering we start to hate and fail to love, and start to harm others and ourselves, God is ready to welcome us back in an instant. Who knows what happens at the instant of death?
The only hell to worry about being in is the one you create for others, and the simple way to avoid it is to make life better for others.
Quoting baker
Christ. That’s it. Zero further examples available, (at least none are as good).
Both Christians and Muslims have converted people by making it impossible to live in peace if they do not convert to the religion in control at the moment. It seems to me that a large part of the success depended on who won the wars. I don't think Hinduism and Buddhism converted people in the same way. :flower:
Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism are not expansive religions; normally, they do not even try to make converts because it is not even theoretically possible to convert to those religions. With Judaism and Hinduism, one needs to be born into them, one cannot normally convert to them (there is some degree of exception such as in the case of marriage). And the Buddhists believe one needs to come to them and beg instructions; they don't go out and actively try to make converts.
This!
One cannot peacefully coexist with someone who despises one.
No, it's more substantial than that. It's fundamental to religion/spirituality. Religion/spirituality requires inequality, it requires hierarchy. It's why the religious/spiritual are so opposed to "cultural marxism".
Religion/spirituality necessitates one-way relationships and can only operate within such one-way relationships:
[i]I have to respect the religious/spiritual, they shouldn't have to respect me.
I have to trust the religious/spiritual, they shouldn't have to trust me.
I have to listen to the religious/spiritual, they shouldn't have to listen to me.
I have to believe the religious/spiritual, they shouldn't have to believe me.[/i]
And, of course:
I have to give the religious/spiritual money and do favors for them, they shouldn't have to give me money or do favors for me.
Or try to heal their existential anxiety.
Quoting Tom Storm
See, I'm talking about the view that has the most damning consequences, that's the one I think is the most relevant to address. And I said so. But religious/spiritual people just don't listen. They inject their own interpretations into my words, they see things that aren't there on the page, and so one has to deal with strawmen pretty much all the time.
And you just don't listen. Read again what I said.
I could spend hours, days, weeks trying to explain. In fact, I have done so for years. But when someone doesn't read what is on the page and instead injects his own projections, there's just no point in trying to discuss anything.
(However, I do think religious/spiritual people do so deliberately.)
I just re-read it: are you going to actually respond to my response now?
If he claims to know better than I (and he does), then he deems himself superior to me. That's it.
There you go: reduce. This "reducing" is all in your mind. I said nothing about "reducing".
Sure. Except that he's not my brother, and I'm quite sure he doesn't consider me a brother/sister either.
Says you. You against all the other people who say otherwise.
I should be nice to others, but they shouldn't have to be nice to me ...
What is there not to understand?
Everyone: I don’t understand why you are offering me a false dichotomy for resolution, outside the context in which I explained my position?
Your question wasn't in good faith to begin with, was it? You weren't asking what this religious framework has been providing such that it's been around for two millennia. You were just taking pot shots. That's what it looked like.
I think I've been honest in describing what I think contributed to its success. I think there's significant evidence in support of my position. It's clear many found the new religion attractive, but I don't think that in itself accounts for its spread and dominion.
When Europeans started trading with China in the 16th Century, they were a little shocked to discover that Christianity was already there. It was the Nestorian form, and had travelled there through Central Asia. There are still churches out there that are fusions of Christianity and Buddhism. Two thousand years. All over the globe. It's not a simple story.
The Mongols conquered Russia, Poland, and much of Hungary by the 1240s. They were noted for their respect for indigenous religions -- many became Christians, Moslems and Buddhists. In fact Dalai (as in Dalai Lama) is a Mongolian word for "ocean" ("ocean of wisdom").
The Mongols improved trade routes and furthered cultural diffusion -- their empire fell apart in the 1300s largely due to the bubonic plague, which caused fear of travelers and traders (who might bring the plague). The intricate communications systems necessary for managing a huge empire collapsed.
It took about 300 years for an orthodoxy to even start developing. Even after the Council of Nicea, after Constantine, after Arianism had been condemned as heresy, some Emperors accepted Arian Chrustianity.
The Nag Hammadi scrolls are evidence that there were several versions of Jesus from almost the beginning.
Heresies abounded through the centuries. Many developed in the first and second centuries CE. The Docetists believed Jesus hasd no physical body; what people saw was an illusion. The Adoptionists thought Jesus was adopted by God sometime during his life. The Marcionists believed the God of the Old Testament wasn't the God of the New Testament. The list goes on and on.
These and other heresies were eventually quashed, sometimes violently, but perhaps the fact that Chrisianity was so malleable to suit tastes contributed
to its spread.
They never quashed the Nestorians in Central Asia, the Coptics in Egypt, the Byzantines in Constantinople or the Russian Orthodox Church. And I think you'll find that for the most part, when the Latin church used violence, the real reason was political.
Kublai Khan's father had a hobby where every afternoon he would sit down with a Muslim, a Buddhist, and a Christian and listen to them argue. A Latin clergyman went out to visit him and asked at one point why he didn't become a Muslim. He reportedly said, "Just as the hand has many fingers, God gives us many paths."
Well as long as the "real reason" heretics are burned or massacred is political, there's no reason for complaint.
So now we're talking about violence between Protestants and Catholics, which isn't really related at all to how Christianity became a global religion.
The Reformation began in the 16th century. A lot happened before then. For example, the massacre of the Cathars in 1209 in Beziers, where the papal legate when asked how to distinguish Cathars from others famously replied (to the glory of God, of course) "Kill them all. God will know his own."
Hmm. That's terrible.
That is beautifully said, and it is not restricted to religious differences. It would be wonderful if all replies were about the subject and not the person who wrote the reply. :lol:
In the past, it might have been understandable for humans to believe their different creation stories, but continuing to do so with our greatly improved understanding of reality makes the continued success of past religions a curious question. How can people maintain a false belief when the evidence gives us such a different story of our creation and amazing survival? :worry: We are supposed to be rational, but to continue to believe a false story of creation when the evidence is so different is an extremely strange human behavior. I eagerly wait for an explanation of that. And what is really nuts about this is how easily they see all the other stories as false. It is only their own creation story that isn't based on superstition. :roll:
I am sure Constantine regretted making Christianity an acceptable religion when the Christians began killing each other. The disagreement about Jesus being the son of God or God himself led to a lot of killing, and then the argument over baptism led to more killing for a long time.
This might be blunt, but the success of Christianity is about winning by killing. Another successful move for Christians is reinterpreting people's beliefs and celebrations to be Christian stories. So the Easter Bunny and Easter Egg, Egyptian symbols of fertiality becoming a Christian holy day. The Tree of Life, a pagan tree, becomes the Christian Tree of Life. I think only the Jehovah's Witnesses acknowledge the pagan history of these celebrations.
Imagine celebrating your favorite pagan days and discovering you are a Christian. :gasp:
What false dichotomy?
I've known Christians who said God was "lovingly condemning". Apparently, it is an act of "love" when God sends people off to eternal torment.
Or when the Holy Inquisition condemned people to be burned at the stake: surely the inquisitors considered this an act of "love", no?
One thing I've learned (and the hard way, at that) is that religious/spiritual people tend to have vastly different ideas than I about what constitutes "good" and "bad", "love" and "hate", and so on. To the point like we're from different universes, hence my question to you earlier.
Someone who claims to believe in God but doesn't base his explanations in claims of God's will, is not a proper theist, so beware of such a person!
It's common for theistic apologists to present quasi-rational and quasi-scientific reasoning for theism (and they'll even say they do it for you, to appease the atheist/the atheist's ego (sic!)). But according to theism itself, such apologists are wrong, for they are not acknowledging God's place.
If they really believe in God, they should have no qualms stating that such and such is God's will. And if there's reason to bellieve they do have such qualms (as mentioned above) then they're not to be taken seriously in a discussion.
This is hardly limited to Christians, though.
Just look at this forum, for example. There are, for example, some prominent posters here who are vocal proponents of charity, humanism, and liberalism. And yet from the way they treat other posters here it's clear that they themselves don't practice what they preach. And what is more, they and their defenders take umbrage at being reminded of that. Apparently, it's somehow beyond the pale to point out that the preacher doesn't practice what he preaches.
Perhaps this points at something more fundamental about humanity: Namely, that moral claims are not supposed to be taken seriously. That it's important to talk the talk -- but that this is all there is to it. The walk is supposed to be quite different than the talk.
Actually, it does come close. Adam and Eve are enjoined from eating from the Tree of knowledge of good and evil. This (I maintain) represents the advent of civilization, when moral rules must become codified, and knowledge of good and evil explicit. They are expelled from Eden, and must labor for their food (Abel becomes a herdsman, Cain a farmer). This suggests the move from hunting and gathering to agriculture -- which happened in the not distant past for those who first told the story.
I studied cultural anthropology in grad school, and some of my profs had studied with people who had recently made this switch. They all hated it. They hated the work; they hated being tied to the land. Many couldn't handle it, and though their slash and burn fields doubled their yield with an hour-a-day of daily weeding, they were often abandoned by the former hunters and gatherers, who wanted to visit their cousins in the next valley.
The physical record bears this out. Measures of health -- average height and longevity - decreased at the advent of civilization. This makes sense. A diet based mainly on the staple crop and contagious diseases that spread with crowded, urban conditions were probably the main culprits.
So the "Eden" of primitive life morphed into agriculture and civilization -- and slavery for huge swaths of the population. No wonder they longed for an Edenic past.
IN more general terms, a religious world view differs from a scientific one in that the scientific world view thinks we are progressing; the religious thinks we have fallen from an idyllic past. This is true for many religions (including the ancient Greeks', Athena) who told stories about the Gods walking the earth and breeding heroic children with humans in a glorified past.
Yes, the Greeks had a golden age, a silver age, and a bronze age. Today, we do the same thing, believing in a better past and the decline in the present.
As you mentioned, the story of Cain and Abel does appear to be a moral crisis. As I understand, the moral crisis was about the shift from being herders who shared everything in common to being farmers who held land individually. That created division and competition, which was not the way of herders. With ownership of land comes inequality and slavery, and lying, and cheating, as Genghis Khan pointed out when he told his people to never settle in one place and start accumulating things, and never choose one religion over another. Genghis Khan thought city people were very immoral.
Can we go back to the Sumerian story that became the Hebrew story of Adam and Eve? The Sumerian story tells us of a terrible, very long drought that killed a river, and then there was flooding. Then a return of mild weather that made farming in the valley possible again. A story that recorded important information became nothing but a myth when people forgot the events that began the story, the long drought, and then the flood.
It is important which story we believe. The Sumerian one does not throw us out of an Eden and give us a God's curse that requires us to be saved by Jesus.
But even in instances of the most belligerent replies here, we can really make no substantive claims about people’s real world commitments to ideals. How do we know if people are liberal or charitable in real life? I think it’s far from clear what people practice and from their words alone we have to be wary of interpretations. Do you hold a view that if someone appears irritable and intermittently vicious on a chat forum they must be nasty and hypocritical in life? Or are you just referring to more constrained, on line hypocritical behaviours?
I don't have any questions for God about good or evil. Therefore, I have no answer for you. Love is not good. Love is grace. The Christian's task, in my view, is deification, transformation through connection to divine grace.
I think you're right. The traditional view of the after life in the ancient Mediterranean was of a rather dreary, shadowy existence. The mystery cults offered a better afterlife to initiates, but Christianity was less exclusive in that respect.
Interesting. I'll have to look into those gospels more to investigate that secret knowledge. Even the wisdom of the canonicals, at least from my perspective as someone who didn't grow up Christian, is often radical to me. It's radical in that it challenges foundational ideas. For instance Jesus's emphasis on the child - quite possibly brilliant and countercultural, but children are also very compliant and make the perfect subjects for authoritarian rule. Another feature would be that Jesus doesn't seem to care for his followers physical longevity — the emphasis is placed on embracing the moment and living naturally rather than worrying or planning about tomorrow — and of course avoiding hell.
When I read these types of texts I usually focus on the teachings over the miracles. I believe that's how Jefferson read them. Besides relating the miracles to earlier textual examples I struggle to make meaningful sense of them. Some of what Jesus does is comparable to what Elijah did, but as Robyn Walsh's scholarship has shown there's a strong Greco-Roman influence too re: the miracles.
not to be confused with the Nag Hammadi 'Gospel of Thomas'.
The Egyptians had a different view. (I don't know that much about it, but apparently if you prepared properly it was quite pleasant).
We can all (I suppose) take note of the DH Lawrence poem:
"Have you built your ship of death, O have you?
O build your ship of death, for you will need it."
Whence this idea that there is a clear demarcation line between online and real life?
If someone on an internet forum treats people like shit, then they treat people like shit.
If someone on an internet forum jumps to conclusions, then they jump to conclusions.
Or do you think that people somehow miraculously totally change the way they talk to people when the conversation is face to face?
That online, they, for example, jump to conclusions, but IRL, they dont??
I think this is understood. I have also learned this from some people I know and how different they are on line compared to real life. Anonymity promotes a different way of relating for many people. Some might even try on a persona. And I imagine some people are more reasonable on line than they are in life. I'm not arguing that this is true for everyone.
But my original point didn’t rely on this. The observation is that on line we don’t really know who we are talking to, or where they are coming from. And it's clearly easier to pretend on line than it is in real time face-to-face.
Quoting baker
Some people, yes, but it is not miraculous. If people are not responsible or identifiable for what they say, they may behave differently; they may be disinhibited. I also believe that online behaviour can promote aggressive discussion and tribalism, which might reduce a person’s capacity to be reasonable and to accept different views.
I, perhaps foolishly, imagine that a discussion forum is for ... well, discussion. Especially a _philosophy_ discussion forum. The "where they are coming from" (regarding the background of one's views) is something to make clear in discussion anyway.
Insofar should it matter that we know who we're talking to, online? Because the other person could be, for example, a government official in an undercover operation, seeking to catch illegal immigrants, drug dealers, etc.?
Or is it that for the purposes of social hierarchy one "needs to know one's place"?
Sure, there is something to be said about the online disinhibition effect.
It is my belief though that online, people are not that different than IRL, it's just that online, they may more readily show particular characteristics than IRL. More readily "show their true selves", if you will.
Those are possible natural consequences of discussion anyway. But one would think that _philosophy_ forum function differently than other views, precisely because they have philosophy as a theme.