Christianity

[+Hammerclaw]

There's no evidence that God did anything, nor any evidence there is a God. Therefore, arguments concerning why God did this that or the other are nonstarters for me. What we are then left with is the religion, itself, starting with its very thin to nonexistent original corpus of literature, its early rise, unlikely persistence over time to its unbelievable triumph over Western spiritual thought. What made it so alluring, provocative and irresistible?

Why did Christianity become so popular? - The Straight Dope

[Sojo]

2 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Therefore, arguments concerning why God did this that or the other are nonstarters for me.

Then I doubt you will be able to get much response from anyone on explaining the need for Christ to you. I just think the need for forgiveness for past wrong doing is central to being able to move forward spiritually.

Regards.

Sojo

[cormac mac airt]

1 hour ago, Sojo said:

Then I doubt you will be able to get much response from anyone on explaining the need for Christ to you. I just think the need for forgiveness for past wrong doing is central to being able to move forward spiritually.

Regards.

Sojo

Your response presupposes that such a “need for Christ” exists which is not remotely in evidence. “The Bible says so” doesn’t make something any more of a fact than reading a comic book or the Weekly World News. 
 

cormac

[cormac mac airt]

The need for Christianity isn’t anything Jesus allegedly said, did, thought, etcetra it’s the need for and by many to believe that there is something better after this life because this life is just too hard for them to accept that it’s all there is. In essence we as a species have a deep-seated need to feel we are the be-all/end-all of Creation because our collective egos won’t allow us to accept anything less. That’s not something to be proud of IMO. 
 

cormac

[+Desertrat56]

3 hours ago, Sojo said:

Then I doubt you will be able to get much response from anyone on explaining the need for Christ to you. I just think the need for forgiveness for past wrong doing is central to being able to move forward spiritually.

Regards.

Sojo

The need for forgiveness for past wrong doing is central to being able to move forward, period, spirituality has nothing to do with it.   And the lie that Jesus Christ will forgive your sins as long as you do what ...anyone claiming church authority... says is the only way to be "saved" by Christ is the biggest error in that whole religion.   It is set up to control large numbers of people, the current version originated from the Romans bastardizing their beliefs with some judaic beliefs, claiming a version of the judaic god for themselves.    And the only forgiveness is that we forgive ourselves for being human and having unreasonable expectations of ourselves and others.

[+Liquid Gardens]

5 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

What we are then left with is the religion, itself, starting with its very thin to nonexistent original corpus of literature, its early rise, unlikely persistence over time to its unbelievable triumph over Western spiritual thought.

I don't think its persistence over time is that unlikely, or at least it's in a 'how unlikely that this shuffled deck of cards is in exactly this order' sense.  Sounds like there was a void to be filled a la the Straight Dope article in that the 'pagan' religions at the time were apparently unsatisfying, I think odds are one of the competing religions at the time was going to dominate.

6 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

What made it so alluring, provocative and irresistible?

Well partly 'irresistible', as the article notes it didn't make much headway against the Eastern religions which were already 'advanced'.  What makes it so alluring I think is pretty straightforward:  it tells a lot of people what they want to believe.  We live on after death, thereby alleviating one of the biggest fears/concerns humans have, and good people are ultimately rewarded and bad people ultimately punished/not rewarded relieving one of the frustrations of this life.  I think that Christianity overall in sum makes many people better than they otherwise would be and more often than it makes people worse, and I think Christians see both this better outlook and hopefully increased unselfish actions both as evidence that their belief is true.  I of course think that those benefits are coming from inside themselves rather than anything external but however they got to that better place is fine; the ends are good and the means they used to get there aren't necessarily harmful and thus don't need justification.

[papageorge1]

7 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

There's no evidence that God did anything, nor any evidence there is a God. Therefore, arguments concerning why God did this that or the other are nonstarters for me.

But Christians are starting from different assumptions.

I think the rise of Christianity started with those that directly experienced Jesus and his teachings and miracles and then went out and spread the word. It was a message that the more spiritually receptive of the time could embrace over the crude thinking of the times. And then Christianity really spread with the politics and authority of the Roman Empire. 

[cormac mac airt]

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

But Christians are starting from different assumptions.

I think the rise of Christianity started with those that directly experienced Jesus and his teachings and miracles and then went out and spread the word. It was a message that the more spiritually receptive of the time could embrace over the crude thinking of the times. And then Christianity really spread with the politics and authority of the Roman Empire. 

Except that there is absolutely no verifiable evidence whatsoever that any of that is true. Nobody contemporary to Jesus wrote about him and none of the NT texts are first hand accounts by anyone who actually knew him. On top of that Jesus the man was a Jew who would, or should, have followed in the Jewish faith but Biblical Jesus essentially committed blasphemy and Christianity has patted Him on the back for having done so because the Biblical narrative is what they wanted to hear. It’s actually embarrassing that the human race can be that gullible. 
 

cormac

[papageorge1]

1 minute ago, cormac mac airt said:

Except that there is absolutely no verifiable evidence whatsoever that any of that is true. Nobody contemporary to Jesus wrote about him and none of the NT texts are first hand accounts by anyone who actually knew him. On top of that Jesus the man was a Jew who would, or should, have followed in the Jewish faith but Biblical Jesus essentially committed blasphemy and Christianity has patted Him on the back for having done so because the Biblical narrative is what they wanted to hear. It’s actually embarrassing that the human race can be that gullible. 
 

cormac

Yes, people are accepting the testimony of others as their evidence along with often a sense of personal experience. And many believe miracles have happened through saints and Christian history fortifying people's belief.

In my personal opinion the beginning and rise of Christianity would not make sense without this charismatic teacher and miracle-worker. 

And how would Jesus be doing wrong to reform a religion or develop a new religion?

[cormac mac airt]

Just now, papageorge1 said:

Yes, people are accepting the testimony of others as their evidence along with often a sense of personal experience. And many believe miracles have happened through saints and Christian history fortifying people's belief.

In my personal opinion the beginning and rise of Christianity would not make sense without this charismatic teacher and miracle-worker. 

And how would Jesus be doing wrong to reform a religion or develop a new religion?

Setting himself up as the Messiah when his version of Messiah-ship WAS NOT what Jews wrote about or believed as well as setting himself as the son of God, co-equal with God himself which was the greatest blasphemy in Judaism. 
 

cormac

[papageorge1]

6 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Setting himself up as the Messiah when his version of Messiah-ship WAS NOT what Jews wrote about or believed as well as setting himself as the son of God, co-equal with God himself which was the greatest blasphemy in Judaism. 
 

cormac

Whether he set himself up as the Messiah (and what is really meant by Messiah) has had a couple thousand years of debate. The Bible cannot be held as inerrant.

My considered opinion is that he meant to lead the people on a more spiritual path, but people drew that into politics and religion, and it got him crucified.

 

Edited January 26 by papageorge1

[cormac mac airt]

2 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Whether he set himself up as the Messiah (and what is really meant by Messiah) has had a couple thousand years of debate. The Bible cannot be held as inerrant.

My considered opinion is that he meant to lead the people on a more spiritual path, but people drew that into politics and religion, and it got him crucified.

 

Your opinion isn’t much considered as it’s no better than the old fictional story of George Washington chopping down a cherry tree. Hear-say doesn’t become fact because some believe it. 
 

cormac

[XenoFish]

6 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

My considered opinion is that he meant to lead the people on a more spiritual path, but people drew that into politics and religion, and it got him crucified.

 

If you want to believe a fictional character have at it. No one is walking on water or moving mountain out of sheer faith. Nor are they performing miracles. 

[papageorge1]

1 minute ago, cormac mac airt said:

Your opinion isn’t much considered as it’s no better than the old fictional story of George Washington chopping down a cherry tree. Hear-say doesn’t become fact because some believe it. 
 

cormac

Just giving my serious 'all things considered' opinion as to what I think is most likely using Christian and non-Christian sources.

[papageorge1]

1 minute ago, XenoFish said:

If you want to believe a fictional character have at it. No one is walking on water or moving mountain out of sheer faith. Nor are they performing miracles. 

I don't believe he's fictional and I do believe miracles occurred and are still occurring.

[XenoFish]

10 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I don't believe he's fictional and I do believe miracles occurred and are still occurring.

That's your problems not mine. I know how gullible you are. 

[XenoFish]

12 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

'all things considered'

Except facts.

[+Hammerclaw]

One must also take into account the posthumous deification and worship of leaders and beloved patrons and teachers was a Roman custom. Also, the concept of the demigod, half god, half human, was Graeco-Roman, as well.

Edited January 26 by Hammerclaw

[+Hammerclaw]

16 hours ago, Sojo said:

Then I doubt you will be able to get much response from anyone on explaining the need for Christ to you. I just think the need for forgiveness for past wrong doing is central to being able to move forward spiritually.

Regards.

Sojo

Only if one accepts the premise of that particular form of spirituality, which posits a peculiarly small-minded, petty, vindictive and cruel sort of deity, although it may be the promoters of that deity who were small-minded, petty, vindictive and cruel. It's little wonder, then, that the god of a barbaric society is portrayed with that civilization's signature barbarism.

Edited January 27 by Hammerclaw

[Tatetopa]

12 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

  It is set up to control large numbers of people,

Bingo.  From earliest times it became a tool of authority and the state.  If peasants want to be forgiven, they have to do it through a state-approved church.  I don't think direct conversation with god was the approved method, one had to go through a priest. There is a big secular wall between the teachings of Jesus and the  commoner, and the only approved door is through the church.  I think it has survived because it is so well suited to be used as a control mechanism. plus starting back in primo geniture  times, it provided a powerful career path for second sons.

[Rlyeh]

16 hours ago, Sojo said:

Then I doubt you will be able to get much response from anyone on explaining the need for Christ to you. I just think the need for forgiveness for past wrong doing is central to being able to move forward spiritually.

Regards.

Sojo

I don't think anyone needs forgiveness for something they haven't done.

[eight bits]

Regarding the OP article, I am not so sure that the European pagans did run out of gas, or not until well after organized Christianity had achieved the numbers, wealth, and social position to make the church a formidable competitor. Even in the mid-300's, the last pagan Roman emperor (Julian) was making a respectable effort, both political and intellectual, to rally his fellow pagans. After he died in battle, the rest of the way up for Christianity to the top of the heap was the usual thing: kill your opponents and steal their stuff.

So how did the Christians achieve the numbers, etc.? I don't know. The only detailed primary sources for the first two or three generations (30 CE to 100 or so) are the "undisputed" letters of Paul (which are not entirely undisputed ... the idea that they are an epistolary novel has gained some traction lately in the academic world).

At the risk of being cynical, it was cheap and easy to be a very early Christian at least in Paul's congregations. You didn't have to do much. Initiation was to take a bath (in a culture where bathing was a regular social activity), "sacrifice" was to eat what you were eating anyway (bread and wine) with friends, keep "faith" with the idea that Jesus was coming someday, which is not quite the same as believing the idea, and when is "someday" anyway?, and don't cheat your fellow Jesus followers (OK, Paul raised money for the "poor" in Jerusalem, and it is a bit vague how much of that loot he charged off as expenses, but I digress).

Somewhere in the middle of that "dark time" (dark = not much information about it is available to us), Paul died. That I think is what we would need to know more about in order to understand how Christianity caught on. If you were a Gentile Christian, Paul was the guy who expected Jesus to come during his lifetime. Nope. Paul was the guy who told you that if you signed up, then you might not ever die. Well, now he's dead, what does that tell you? If you were a Jewish Christian, then Paul told you that although Jesus didn't do anything "Messianic" yet, he was gonna do all of it and more when he came in the sky. Soon. Not soon enough, though, not for Paul.

From modern experience, e.g. the failure of the 19th Century Millerite "prophecies" of the end times, we know what might have happened when Paul died. Sure, some people wake up and leave the fold. But others double down, and those became hard core Millerites. It's been at least six generations since Miller's Jesus didn't show up as scheduled in 1844. We still have SDA's, JW's, and yes Urantia fans in visible numbers, and the SDA's and JW's are organized and many have children who will be successfully indoctrinated.

As I say, we don't have evidence from the critical time, so we can only guess. Does the content of Christian belief matter? It will when Protestantism comes along, but that's way late. Closer to the critical early time, who knows what people believed, and where is the evidence that they all believed the same things? Paul complains that they didn't ... yet another way that being a very early Christian was cheap and easy.

One final factor is the miracle of compound interest. About 300 years separate the deaths of Paul and Julian. An average net growth rate of 3% per year would turn 1,000 adherents when Paul died into more than 7,000,000 when Julian died. The trick would be for a movement to survive those 300 years and along the way recruit new members beyond what it needs to replace its dead and disaffected (indoctinating members' children and supporting missionaries might work).

 

Edited January 27 by eight bits

[Sojo]

5 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Only if one accepts the premise of that particular form of spirituality, which posits a peculiarly small-minded, petty, vindictive and cruel sort of deity, although it may be the promoters of that deity who were small-minded, petty, vindictive and cruel. It's little wonder, then, that the god of a barbaric society is portrayed with that civilization's signature barbarism.

That's if one accepts that the Old Testament "God" was the same as the "Father" that Christ spoke of and prayed to. I (and many others) do not accept that premise.

That is an assumption that Christ came to repudiate as I've described in several other posts on this site. He was very subtle in the way he did so and it angered the Jewish leaders to the point of wanting him destroyed.

IMHO,

Sojo

[XenoFish]

27 minutes ago, eight bits said:

The trick would be for a movement to survive those 300 years and along the way recruit new members beyond what it needs to replace its dead and disaffected (indoctinating members' children and supporting missionaries might work).

Probably how it happened. You have a general idea of eternal life while existing in a harsh world. The most minimalistic requirements and ease of transmission. People who were traders and travellers spreading the idea far and wide. 

[Sojo]

18 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

And the lie that Jesus Christ will forgive your sins as long as you do what ...anyone claiming church authority... says is the only way to be "saved" by Christ is the biggest error in that whole religion.

People who seek forgiveness for their past wrong doing must first be able to have Faith that it is even possible. Christ enables them to have that Faith. Christ is how God enables the Faith in an individual to obtain the forgiveness and initiate a complete change in the individual.

Sojo