Interesting thread.

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, Isn't God supposed to be a flame that you can be burned by if you touch it?

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.

Would you call Jesus a philosopher? — Tom Storm

I am just the son of Mary of Joseph. - Jesus in The Last Temptation 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.

/.../
Which tells us something about successful institutional religion and ourselves, I think; none of it inspiring or attractive. — Ciceronianus

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.