Religion II

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by ultracapper

The majority of all major religions throughout history were forced on people violently, and their staying power was ultimately secured by children doing what their parents do. People's common sense can be be greatly effected by the threat of a visit to the iron maiden.

Edit: And up until the age of discovery, beginning about 525 years ago, Christianity was pretty much a European religion, with some pockets of followers in eastern Africa, making it 3rd or 4th in number of confessed followers. The great conversion of the western hemisphere natives, of which very few were entirely voluntary, really pushed the numbers for Christianity into a majority.

For an alternative view, at least regarding Christianity in Late antiquity, via Tim O'Neill's review of Bart Ehrman's The Triumph of Christianity...

"On the whole, however, his analysis is balanced. He notes the instances of violence and the evidence of some destruction of temples and statues, but overall comes to the same conclusion of most objective historians: Christianity did not win out because of violent coercion. In conclusion, he quotes Michele Renee Salzman’s observation that “it is hard to accept the interpretation advanced by certain scholars that physical violence, coercion, was a central factor in explaining the spread of Christianity” (p. 274)...

https://historyforatheists.com/2018/...-christianity/

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

For an alternative view, at least regarding Christianity in Late antiquity, via Tim O'Neill's review of Bart Ehrman's The Triumph of Christianity...

"On the whole, however, his analysis is balanced. He notes the instances of violence and the evidence of some destruction of temples and statues, but overall comes to the same conclusion of most objective historians: Christianity did not win out because of violent coercion. In conclusion, he quotes Michele Renee Salzman’s observation that “it is hard to accept the interpretation advanced by certain scholars that physical violence, coercion, was a central factor in explaining the spread of Christianity” (p. 274)...

https://historyforatheists.com/2018/...-christianity/

“Men are always disgusted with those who use violence; they conclude that they are wrong, and that those against whom they commit violence have reason on their side. Persecution will always make partisans to the cause persecuted; and those to which we allude, tended the more to confirm Christians in their religion.

The spectators of their sufferings were interested for them. They were curious to know the principles of a sect which drew on itself such cruel treatment, and infused into its adherents a courage believed to be supernatural.

They imagined that such a religion could be no other than the work of God; its partisans appeared extraordinary men, and their enthusiasm became contagious. Violence served only to spread it the more, and, according to the language of a Christian doctor, "the blood of the martyrs became the seed of the church." From Ecce Homo, Baron D’holbach.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Spare me your drivel.

Sure. Just admit that each of your "secular sources that speak to the historical Jesus" are simply confirming the existence of Christianity and not the existence of a historical Jesus. Then I'll spare you. Otherwise you have thrown down the gauntlet and are asking me to not pick it up.

[Actor]

• Tacitus lived from 55 to 120 C.E.
• The passage in question was written about 120 C.E. near the end of Tacitus's life.
• Where did Tacitus get his information? Born in 55 C.E. he could not have personally known Jesus (whom Tacitus refers to as Christ, as though it were a name instead of the title which it is).
• One could speculate that Tacitus had access to Roman records but no such records have survived, so that idea must remain pure speculation.
• Tacitus is know to have a dislike for Christians, considering them troublemakers. He first encountered then when he was governor of Asia circa 112 C.E.
• As governor of Asia dealing with Christian troublemakers Tacitus would undoubtedly know something of the religion. If they told him their founder was an actual man who had been crucified 90 years earlier would he have taken the time to fact check their story? Not likely.
• Tacitus considered Christianity to be "superstition."
• Irregardless of whether Tacitus believed Jesus was mythical or real he was in no position to give any authoritative evidence in the matter, ergo, his testimony can be dismissed. In a court of law his testimony would not be allowed. Neither would it stand up to peer review.
• Conclusion: Tacitus confirms only the existence of Christianity during the late first and early second century, not the existence of Jesus.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But I do have a question for you: Since you believe the Christian religion was built entirely on a myth (fiction), can you name another ancient religion whose leader was a mythical figure, and that currently has half the number of professed believers that Christianity has today, which is about 2.2 billion?

Argumentum ad populum!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Hinduism. One billion self-professed members.

https://www.thoughtco.com/top-hindu-deities-1770309

Err...'scuse me: Do the Hindus believe their gods are mythical?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by ultracapper

The majority of all major religions throughout history were forced on people violently, and their staying power was ultimately secured by children doing what their parents do. People's common sense can be be greatly effected by the threat of a visit to the iron maiden.

Edit: And up until the age of discovery, beginning about 525 years ago, Christianity was pretty much a European religion, with some pockets of followers in eastern Africa, making it 3rd or 4th in number of confessed followers. The great conversion of the western hemisphere natives, of which very few were entirely voluntary, really pushed the numbers for Christianity into a majority.

What you say is true; however the bible never sanctions violence when propagating the Gospel. The Gospel has been systematically perverted for nearly 2,000 years by apostates, heretics, disillusioned "believers", etc., and one of its perversions has been the use of violence in bringing people to faith.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

• Tacitus lived from 55 to 120 C.E.
• The passage in question was written about 120 C.E. near the end of Tacitus's life.
• Where did Tacitus get his information? Born in 55 C.E. he could not have personally known Jesus (whom Tacitus refers to as Christ, as though it were a name instead of the title which it is).
• One could speculate that Tacitus had access to Roman records but no such records have survived, so that idea must remain pure speculation.
• Tacitus is know to have a dislike for Christians, considering them troublemakers. He first encountered then when he was governor of Asia circa 112 C.E.
• As governor of Asia dealing with Christian troublemakers Tacitus would undoubtedly know something of the religion. If they told him their founder was an actual man who had been crucified 90 years earlier would he have taken the time to fact check their story? Not likely.
• Tacitus considered Christianity to be "superstition."
• Irregardless of whether Tacitus believed Jesus was mythical or real he was in no position to give any authoritative evidence in the matter, ergo, his testimony can be dismissed. In a court of law his testimony would not be allowed. Neither would it stand up to peer review.
• Conclusion: Tacitus confirms only the existence of Christianity during the late first and early second century, not the existence of Jesus.

All this has been addressed previously.

The fact of the matter is that various writers universally presumed the existence of Jesus. Conversely, there is no such presumption of the Jesus myth in ancient writings.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Argumentum ad populum!

No, it's a fair question. If you can't come up with any other mythical religions that sports even half as many believers as Christianity, then we'd have to conclude that the number of adherents to what you say is the Jesus myth is unprecedented.

Furthermore, what makes this "Jesus Myth" even more incredible is that virtually the entire world is aware of Christianity's two religious observance days -- Christmas and Easter. The world cannot escape these two holidays. They are celebrated virtually everywhere. Virtually everyone knows that Christmas celebrates Christ's birth and that Easter celebrates his Resurrection from the dead.

But it even gets better than this. The "Jesus Myth" became so insanely popular that some Catholic monk (I think it was) invented a universal, global calendar numbering system that label the years with specific reference to the birth of Christ!

Anno Domini
The terms Anno Domini and before Christ are used to label or number years in the Julian and Gregorian calendars.

Man...I tell ya...this Jesus Myth is truly unprecedented. What other founder of a religion can boast of such popularity? The King of kings and Lord of lords is in this world whether anyone wants him to be or not.

[ultracapper]

Originally Posted by boxcar

What you say is true; however the bible never sanctions violence when propagating the Gospel. The Gospel has been systematically perverted for nearly 2,000 years by apostates, heretics, disillusioned "believers", etc., and one of its perversions has been the use of violence in bringing people to faith.

We do have to accept this, but we also have to agree with the 2 posters that spoke of the respect and wonder the masses had for the early martyrs. It is true that watching the early believers suffer horrid penalties for their faith, many times for purely entertainment purposes, inspired many who viewed these punishments and the manner the faithful endured them, left a wonder with the viewers of what exactly gave these Christians there strength to suffer such atrocious deaths.

We have to agree that it was inspiring, and brought many to the table to learn about this new spiritual movement.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by ultracapper

We do have to accept this, but we also have to agree with the 2 posters that spoke of the respect and wonder the masses had for the early martyrs. It is true that watching the early believers suffer horrid penalties for their faith, many times for purely entertainment purposes, inspired many who viewed these punishments and the manner the faithful endured them, left a wonder with the viewers of what exactly gave these Christians there strength to suffer such atrocious deaths.

We have to agree that it was inspiring, and brought many to the table to learn about this new spiritual movement.

I think we're talking about two different things here. I was referring to professing Christians using violence against non-Christians, which is not sanctioned in scripture. But you're talking about non-Christians persecuting Christians which scripture predicted, since the world, generally, hates Christ's disciples.

[ultracapper]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I think we're talking about two different things here. I was referring to professing Christians using violence against non-Christians, which is not sanctioned in scripture. But you're talking about non-Christians persecuting Christians which scripture predicted, since the world, generally, hates Christ's disciples.

I was addressing the fact that not all conversion was under duress. That the early martyrs accepting their fate with dignity was as powerful in converting new believers as was the threat of "convert or else".

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by ultracapper

I was addressing the fact that not all conversion was under duress. That the early martyrs accepting their fate with dignity was as powerful in converting new believers as was the threat of "convert or else".

Okay...I see what you're saying. I just don't think in those terms because I don't believe anyone is truly converted "under duress". True conversion is a heart matter.

Rom 10:9-11
9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; 10 for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.
NASB

[VigorsTheGrey]

“In consequence of these fanatical ideas, so flattering to vanity, martyrdom became an object of ambition to Christians. Independent of the heavenly rewards, which they believed assured to those who suffered with constancy, and perished for religion, they saw them esteemed, revered, and carefully attended to during their lives, while honors almost divine were decreed them after death.

On the contrary, those of the Christian community who had the weakness to shrink from tortures, and renounce their religion, were scoffed at, despised, and regarded as infamous. So many circumstances combined contributed to warm the imaginations [Pg 197]of the faithful, already sufficiently agitated by notions of the approaching end of the world, the coming of Jesus, and his happy reign.

They submitted cheerfully to punishment, and gloried in their chains: they courted martyrdom as a favor, and often, through a blind zeal, provoked the rage of their persecutors. The magistrates, by their proscriptions and tortures, caused the enthusiasm of the Christians to kindle more and more.

Their courage was besides supported by the heads of their sect, who constantly displayed the heavens opening to the heroes who consented to suffer and perish for their cause, which they took care to make the poor fanatics regard as the cause of God himself.

A martyr, at all times, is merely the victim of the enthusiastic or knavish priest who has been able to seduce him.”

Baron D’Holbach, from Ecce Homo

[TJDave]

VigorsTheGrey,

May I suggest...

“The Myth of Persecution” How early Christians invented a story of martyrdom, by Candida Moss.