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.

In short, it profited from its intolerance.

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.

Third, zealous commitment to its spread among non-Christians (the missionary impulse), sometimes by force of arms.

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.

Fourth, the appeal of a religion which promised forgiveness of sins, thus providing hope that salvation was possible regardless of wrongs committed during life.

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)?

The main reason Christianity is so popular is because it was enforced by violence and conquest, shoved forcefully down the throats of the conquered. Sure, today it doesnt operate that way for the most part but it wouldnt be so entrenched in western culture without its violent, authoritarian beginnings. Islam is the same but hasnt grown up past the violence and subjugation.

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?

The world was changing. Judaism was a tribal religion -- but the Roman Empire had made tribalism obsolete (or if not obsolete, at least dated). The "tribe" morphed into "the set of believers". Of course this is a problem for modern Christians (especially evangelicals in the U.S.). Unlike Catholic rituals (which "confirm" tribal identity), "belief" is not publicly identifiable. Hence, a litany of "beliefs" confirming it (anti-abortion, anti-communism, etc.).

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.

The doctrine of forgiveness of sin provides a method to avoid responsibility. Why be virtuous when you can always be absolved on request? — Ciceronianus

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. 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.