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.

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.

Christianity laid forth rules of life that were wise and effective.

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.

Could be. It was a regular practice in the monasteries founded by the descendants of those barbarian tribes. — Ciceronianus

Benedict was Italian. :cool:

↪Ecurb
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. — Ciceronianus

"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.

I don't know if we can call them effective, given the conduct of most professed Christians. — Ciceronianus

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?

Are you really asking for an account of wrongful conduct by professed Christians? — Ciceronianus

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.

Well, no one is perfect, and neither are religions. I'm just wondering what behavior particularly by Christians should put into question the idea that Christianity puts forward some wise and effective ideas on how to structure society.

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.

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: — Bob Ross

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"?

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.

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.

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)?

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 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. — Ciceronianus

I think that's a widely held view these days.

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. — 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.

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. — Ciceronianus

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.

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. — Tom Storm

It makes them feel superior to the outgroup and makes them feel justified to destroy the outgroup.

Do you think that accounts for 100% of them at all times?