DBWI: A Christian World

The Roman Empire required its citizens to venerate the Emperor. The Christians refused to do so. The Empire considered refusing to venerate the Emperor an act of treason. I am not endorsing the Empire position, and I think we're all glad that policies like that are not around any more, but you can't ignore that it was an issue around the 1000's AUC.


Except for Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius...

Granted, there's a fair amount of evidence that some of those texts were interpolated by later copyists who added in more anti-Christian material, but even if some of the original texts were modified, there are still plenty of contemporary accounts of Christian depravity.

Most Christians just don't realize how much their religion has mellowed out over the years. Then again, a lot of Christians think that the accounts of the Christians apologists are more reliable when it comes to understanding early church practices than proper Roman sources, but I suppose that kind of bias is inevitable. Personally, I don't think you could have so many Roman sources issuing the same claims about Christian depravity unless there was some factual basis for it.
First, my father was an expert researcher in the early church and worked for the University of Jerusalem, Josephus never claimed that Christians took part in 'cannibalistic orgies' His only reference to cannibalism at all is his description of the devastation caused by the destruction of Jerusalem and the slaughter of Jews and Christians that followed when he mentions that some people were so desperate they were taking meat off already dead bodies they found along their route of escape. Hardly a common place occurrence. The other writers are well known bigots toward Christians, and over the past 100 years many scholars, including a British archeologist who 50 years ago found some original manuscripts of Pliny the Younger, have determined that later copiers made the writing more and more outrageous in their attacks against my faith. The writers you mentioned had minimal contact with any Christians or Christian religious ceremonies if any contact at all, and Tacticus made the absurd claim that we drank our own blood at communion, instead of wine. There were certainly problems with the early church, persecutions against non believers in Armenia and Turkey, worshiping of idols according to pagan cult customs that violate Christian beliefs, but one many of the contemporary accounts of depravity dealt with the Gnostics, who have always been looked on as heretics by the other groups for their non-biblical, unchristian, and mystical doctrines. most of these claims of depravity that are credible are no worse then pagan cults like Baccus, and in many cases are known to us because leaders in the Church decried them as unchristian.

Sure we aren't perfect, but neither is anyone else, and while our faith has always had deviants who have strayed from the message and allowed ignorant people to apply their actions to all of us, most of the 'Christian apologists' are simply correcting widespread false beliefs pushed by bigoted pagan 'intellectuals' who have nothing better to do then attack our faith. I would like to say though, that Rabbi Abdul from Mecca is completely loony in his claims about Christian history, and the complete perfection of Christianity as a religion unsullied by flaws.

Bel spare us

"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven."

This cult is nothing but the politics of envoy shrouded in judaism lite. Courage and entrepreneurship are sins to these people! Let's not forget the damage the Church of Marx had caused over the past 150 odd years (Christian and hypocrite have been synonyms from then on for a reason). As a true Briton, I'm glad we weren't touched by that rabble rousing nonsense.
WE ARE A RELIGION!!!! NOT A CULT!!!!! just because are faith is not very comment outside of central asia, doesn't mean we are not a distinct religion. we are the fifth largest faith in the world after Pagan Pantheism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Daoism. You are a moron, as it has already been said, major philosophers around the world agree that attachment to earthly possessions can have unfortunate consequences, and the so called 'Church of Marx' is only used atheist materialists who try to lump Marxism with the faith that he rejected in his youth, just because it tells us to help our fellow man.


BTW, there are major groups of Nestorians in Central Asia, Christianity didn't spread to the Mongols per say, but it and Buddhism are the to largest religions in the area.
 
Hey!! The Rite of Baccus is not a cult either, Christian boy! Just because your religion thinks drunkeness and casual public sex are sins doesn't mean anyone who likes to tip the bottle or bum on occasion is a cultist!

Plenty of people follow the Baccian Rites, even those of us not really following the Greco-Roman pantheon. I'm a Platonic Taoist, but still get the urge to hit the Dionescian Temple every now and then. Stress of a job in the Jupiter Guild and all [OOC: electricians and electrical engineers].
 
Porphyr? Now you're bringing philosophy into the argument, well, if we rejected the pursuit of material gain, there would be no incentive to innovate or better our condition, and we would still be the fur clad troglodytes you continental bigots insist on labelling us to this day.

A world ruled by philosophers would be just as bad as a christian world, where the need to judge and to criticise would ensure that nothing would ever get done.

Put it this way, Christianity rejects all forms of violence including self defence. If everyone in the world were a Christian except for Bob, Bob would rule the world.
 
Porphyr? Now you're bringing philosophy into the argument, well, if we rejected the pursuit of material gain, there would be no incentive to innovate or better our condition, and we would still be the fur clad troglodytes you continental bigots insist on labelling us to this day.

A world ruled by philosophers would be just as bad as a christian world, where the need to judge and to criticise would ensure that nothing would ever get done.

Put it this way, Christianity rejects all forms of violence including self defence. If everyone in the world were a Christian except for Bob, Bob would rule the world.

This is strange. Could a faith that is so against violence also be a faith that practices cannibalism? I don't see the linkage.

Regarding the Marxist faith, I doubt that Karl Marx's idolatry would have spread as easily if it were not for his cousins. Groucho, Harpo, and the other two brothers whose names I forget. It is interesting how they came from the Baccus tradition to follow and spread their cousin's teachings.
 
Put it this way, Christianity rejects all forms of violence including self defence. If everyone in the world were a Christian except for Bob, Bob would rule the world.

Please. Have you ever met a Christian? Because if you go around slapping Christians in the face, you'll find that that famous passage is usually not interpreted as literally as you might hope.

Furthermore, it's a mistake to think of all Christians as moralist prudes: there are hedonistic and ascetic strands in all religions. I have a hard-partying Peterist acquaintance who just LOVES to get drunk and tell the story (is this accepted by all sects?) of Jesus making sure everyone had enough wine at a wedding.

Finally, a pet peeve: I really object to the modern use of "cult" as a pejorative. I, personally, wouldn't want to devote myself to preserving one particular set of local rites, but I'm glad there are those who do. And of course, not all cults are Bacchants; there are cults of Artemis of the Hunt, Quirinus, and many others, they just don't get as many headlines.
 
The very fact that so many early Christian writers spent so much time denouncing those practices and trying to prove that "real" Christians did not do that kind of thing proves that it was a serious problem. A big chunk of your post is pretty much a textbook example of the No Real Christian Fallacy (and the fact that there's an entire logical fallacy named after one of the common Christian apologist lines in indicative).

Granted, there were early Christian reformers that wanted to tame and civilize the religion, and they eventually succeeded, but the idea of an uncivilized Christianity ever becoming a major religion is ASB. Not even Caligula was into cannibalism and incestuous orgies. Maybe you could get Christianity as larger religion is they managed to civilize before their reputation was thoroughly blackened by their excesses? Maybe if those extremists had not started the Great Fire of Rome in 817? (Yes I know that Christian historians and some revisionists claim that they did not start the fire, but let's stick with established scholarship)
This is strange. Could a faith that is so against violence also be a faith that practices cannibalism? I don't see the linkage.
Going off the most reliable sources we have from back when the Christians did that kind of thing, most of the people who the Christians cannibalized were members of the religion who willingly sacrificed themselves as part of the cannibalistic ritual.
 
Porphyr? Now you're bringing philosophy into the argument, well, if we rejected the pursuit of material gain, there would be no incentive to innovate or better our condition, and we would still be the fur clad troglodytes you continental bigots insist on labelling us to this day.

A world ruled by philosophers would be just as bad as a christian world, where the need to judge and to criticise would ensure that nothing would ever get done.

Put it this way, Christianity rejects all forms of violence including self defence. If everyone in the world were a Christian except for Bob, Bob would rule the world.

Platonism is a philosophy and a religion in its own right. (And I should know. Ordained Theurge.) And there are other reasons to improve yourself--better ones.
 
WE ARE A RELIGION!!!! NOT A CULT!!!!! just because are faith is not very comment outside of central asia, doesn't mean we are not a distinct religion. we are the fifth largest faith in the world after Pagan Pantheism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Daoism.

I'm going to have to nitpick here. Unless you are lumping Zoroastrianism in with Pagan Pantheism, Christianity is the 6th largest religion in the world (Zoroastrianism resting snugly between Hinduism and Buddhism)
 
The very fact that so many early Christian writers spent so much time denouncing those practices and trying to prove that "real" Christians did not do that kind of thing proves that it was a serious problem. A big chunk of your post is pretty much a textbook example of the No Real Christian Fallacy (and the fact that there's an entire logical fallacy named after one of the common Christian apologist lines in indicative).
Actually if you had read my post you would have seen that the denouncements of early church practices had nothing to do with cannibalism and instead, they were denouncing trying to keep pagan rituals with their new found faith in Christ. It has never been mainstream thought by anyone that Christians are cannibals, even during the time of Tacticus. It is simply lies propped up by a small vocal groups of bigots who just hate Christianity, and unfortunately you seem to be part of that group.

Lastly, My post has nothing to do with the no real Christian fallacy, which becomes a tool to disown anyone who believes in the faith and does something not accepted by outsiders, and I strongly disapprove of, no one is a perfect Christian, but most of us are real ones: That part of my post has to do with the Gnostics, who don't share any of the major components of Christianity, beside the belief in one God (and some Gnostics have a different take on that), and have been widely denounced by all major sects of my faith for their heretical views. They are a combination of bastardized pseudo-Christianity mixed with local pagan beliefs, and a touch of mystic cultism for seasoning. No surprise that it quickly fell out of favor with most groups (especially after persecution from the Armenian church), and really only has any traction at all among the tribes in the middle of the Arabian peninsula north of the Yemeni Jews.
Granted, there were early Christian reformers that wanted to tame and civilize the religion, and they eventually succeeded, but the idea of an uncivilized Christianity ever becoming a major religion is ASB. Not even Caligula was into cannibalism and incestuous orgies. Maybe you could get Christianity as larger religion is they managed to civilize before their reputation was thoroughly blackened by their excesses? Maybe if those extremists had not started the Great Fire of Rome in 817? (Yes I know that Christian historians and some revisionists claim that they did not start the fire, but let's stick with established scholarship)

Going off the most reliable sources we have from back when the Christians did that kind of thing, most of the people who the Christians cannibalized were members of the religion who willingly sacrificed themselves as part of the cannibalistic ritual.
Alright, not only are you a bigot, you are a conspiracy theorist and a lier as well. IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED BY MAINSTREAM SCHOLARSHIP FOR CENTURIES that the fire was caused by a dry summer, and a street vendor's oven that spilled its contents into an olive oil sellers stall in the slums of the old quarter, the fact that the oil seller was Christian made the emperor use us as a scapegoat to preserve his weakening power, the man who overthrew him, a German, ended the programs against us in order to restore order in Rome and set the record straight. Your bigotry doesn't entitle you to make up facts that don't exist. Christianity was never some wild cult with death rituals and group sex, Christianity's basic teachings, and the teachings of Judaism before it ban things that would even eventualy lead to that kind of thing. There are ZERO reliable sources saying Christians offered themselves up to be eaten by fellow believers. Any more of this trolling and I will report you to the admin. Seriously guys, this person is making your faith look like a bunch of intolerant bigots, point out the truth, it is comments like this that lead us Christians to despise pagans, it is exactly these kinds of people who give me such problems in my own country when they are tourists and see me with my Yarmulke marked with the Cross. Show us that at least some of the pagans aren't just a bunch of ignorant jerks.

OOC: Can we finally agree that ITTL the Christians had no cannibalistic rituals or wild free love sessions, there is nothing in Christianity's heritage that could come close to leading to that.

IC: I apologize for calling the followers of Baccus a cult, I was thinking off its more wild past, and the fact that it is subordinate to the pantheon combined, I was really getting at the fact that my religion is no less an established faith then yours is. I like a drink just as much as the next man, and the story of Christ turning water into wine at a wedding is noted as one of, if not his very first miracle he preformed. It is just the secretive cloak that the group used to shroud itself in lead me to use that label, but it makes sense when you think about the persecution it received for being mostly Greek.

I forgot about Zoroastrianism, I tend to lump its followers in Central Asia and Persia, together with the Buddhists there, even though I know they have different beliefs, its the Mongols adoption of both faiths that causes me to think that way I guess.:eek: It is definitely a larger faith.
 
Anyway, if I recall the OP correctly, it was "make Christianity a world majority religion," not "let's troll the Christians with some obnoxious bigotry." So let's get back to that, yes?

I note that "world majority" is a really huge goal; even pagans, loosely counted, don't, I believe, make up a majority of the world. So there's a lot of work to do. Here are some issues/opportunities I can see:

1. Christianity's general pacifism/lack of political involvement. I may be in the minority, but I think this is largely accidental, and a politically involved Christianity is plausible. Persecuted minority religions often develop anti-political doctrines, that can be just as easily shed as they get access to power.

2. The lack of unity among Christian sects. This strikes me as a more inherent aspect of the religion; I'm constantly surprised by the importance Christians assign to what are, to my eyes, relatively minor disagreements. (Once in a while, a Trinitarian clergyman or theologian comes to lecture near here, and every time, a bunch of Peterists [I think?] put up signs announcing that "THE FATHER IS GREATER THAN THE SON." Weird.) OTOH, maybe we don't need to do anything about this: our "majority Christian" world could consist of several large, unreconciled sects. But there's the related issue of. . .

3. . . . resistance to syncretism. I myself believe in syncretism as the road to religious truth -- as I mentioned above, I think Julian the Good's reforms were a huge step in the development of Greco-Roman (and, later, northern European and African) paganism. But less controversially, it's a lot easier to become the world's largest religion if your boundaries aren't too strictly policed. And I think that's something that would have to change about Christianity. I mean, IOTL, we talk about Christianity and Judaism as separate religions; I respect the right of their practitioners to define themselves that way, but the distinction does seem awfully thin to an outsider. What if TTL Christianity was more open to syncretism? Could we manage, e.g., a blending of Christianity and Buddhism (this is inspired by some Roman theological writers who have argued that Jesus and Buddha are in fact the same god, probably an aspect of Dionysus)? That probably wouldn't, in itself, get us to a majority of the world, but it would certainly be a start.
 
Actually if you had read my post you would have seen that the denouncements of early church practices had nothing to do with cannibalism and instead, they were denouncing trying to keep pagan rituals with their new found faith in Christ. It has never been mainstream thought by anyone that Christians are cannibals, even during the time of Tacticus. It is simply lies propped up by a small vocal groups of bigots who just hate Christianity, and unfortunately you seem to be part of that group.
If it's not mainstream thought, then why do most of the non-Christian sources from the first few centuries the Christians were around include so many descriptions of depraved Christian practices? Was every single Roman-era historian a part of this vast evil conspiracy?

Lastly, My post has nothing to do with the no real Christian fallacy, which becomes a tool to disown anyone who believes in the faith and does something not accepted by outsiders, and I strongly disapprove of, no one is a perfect Christian, but most of us are real ones: That part of my post has to do with the Gnostics, who don't share any of the major components of Christianity, beside the belief in one God (and some Gnostics have a different take on that), and have been widely denounced by all major sects of my faith for their heretical views. They are a combination of bastardized pseudo-Christianity mixed with local pagan beliefs, and a touch of mystic cultism for seasoning. No surprise that it quickly fell out of favor with most groups (especially after persecution from the Armenian church), and really only has any traction at all among the tribes in the middle of the Arabian peninsula north of the Yemeni Jews.
Wow, a Christian that doesn't even know what the No Real Christian Fallacy is; that's an impressive level of ignorance. Allow me to demonstrate using small, easily understood words that won't confuse you:

You: No Christian ever did anything depraved.

Me: *Presents several respected classical historians who say otherwise.

You: Well, no REAL Christian ever did anything depraved.

Then again, you seem to have dropped the No Real Christian line in favor of just going back to hysterical screaming denial of things that I've already disproven several posts ago.
Alright, not only are you a bigot, you are a conspiracy theorist and a lier as well. IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED BY MAINSTREAM SCHOLARSHIP FOR CENTURIES that the fire was caused by a dry summer, and a street vendor's oven that spilled its contents into an olive oil sellers stall in the slums of the old quarter, the fact that the oil seller was Christian made the emperor use us as a scapegoat to preserve his weakening power, the man who overthrew him, a German, ended the programs against us in order to restore order in Rome and set the record straight. Your bigotry doesn't entitle you to make up facts that don't exist. Christianity was never some wild cult with death rituals and group sex, Christianity's basic teachings, and the teachings of Judaism before it ban things that would even eventualy lead to that kind of thing. There are ZERO reliable sources saying Christians offered themselves up to be eaten by fellow believers. Any more of this trolling and I will report you to the admin. Seriously guys, this person is making your faith look like a bunch of intolerant bigots, point out the truth, it is comments like this that lead us Christians to despise pagans, it is exactly these kinds of people who give me such problems in my own country when they are tourists and see me with my Yarmulke marked with the Cross. Show us that at least some of the pagans aren't just a bunch of ignorant jerks.
You know, I really have to admire your utter hypocrisy in accusing anyone and everyone of bigotry, when it's clear that you're the one who refuses to accept any history that wasn't written by a member of your own faith. Apparently Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger no longer count as real historians because they aren't Christians...

People from your faith used to be kind of crazy. They got over it and settled down. Deal with it.

OOC: Can we finally agree that ITTL the Christians had no cannibalistic rituals or wild free love sessions, there is nothing in Christianity's heritage that could come close to leading to that.
OOC: You are aware that such accusations against the early Christian church were very common in pre-Christian Roman sources, aren't you?
 
To put it into somewhat blunt terms, Christianity was hemmed in from further avenues of expansion.

During the first Roman Empire Christianity expanded rapidly and possessed large congregations at every corner of the empire. This expansion was slowed by imperial opposition, and emerging sectarianism amongst its various branches. But what effectively stopped the expansion of Christianity in the West was the Hades Age and the Warring Kingdoms. The Germanic kings which partitioned the Western Empire restarted the persecution against Jews and Christians with unequaled fervor. As cities declined by war, famine, and economic collapse, so to did the main centers of Christian worship. Many monotheists responded by fleeing, for what ever the reasons the Jews congregated in Hispania and Mauretania. Christians, on the other hand, fled east. By the time Rome had reformed Christianity was all but extinct in Northern Europe and mostly confined to Italia and Greece.

While the former eastern provinces would become the refuge of Christianity, its expansion eastwards was hampered by Persia. Zoroastrianism, as the state religion of Persia, enjoyed enormous patronage. While Christians were tolerated, missionary work throughout the Persian empire was forbidden. Christians The Christian states loathed to antagonize Persia, as they were reliant upon its assistance for protection. Thus in the east, Christianity lost much of its evangelical fervor.

Expansion still occurred southwards into Africa. Axum was the major proponent of Christianity along the horn of Africa. Coptic Christianity was spread to neighboring kingdoms by both trade and diplomacy. However Axum and its missionaries never went much further beyond than tsetse fly zone than with the Kikuyu. Most of eastern Africa is now Hindu by virtue of colonization, depriving Christianity more theological real-estate.

If any of these avenues stayed open, Christianity might certainly have ended up as a larger more influential faith.
 
If it's not mainstream thought, then why do most of the non-Christian sources from the first few centuries the Christians were around include so many descriptions of depraved Christian practices? Was every single Roman-era historian a part of this vast evil conspiracy?
One, no credible source from the area mentions cannibalism, the closest is is Tacticus's outrages claim that we drank our own blood in communion.
Two, the descriptions of depraved Christian practices made by non-Christian sources, were from sources with either no personal contact with its beliefs, or second hand accounts from people who had heard about the evils from someone else. Modern, Non-Christian scholarship has put many of these bigoted claims to rest, pointed out later additions to them, and used sources of non-Christian's who had actually had contact with believers to disprove the more ridiculous claims. Every single Roman era historian was certainly not influenced by the delusions espoused by the anti-Christian Establishment. Many quality sources authenticated by non-Christian scholars that were written by people who actually knew Christians, like Porcius Festus who shipped Paul off to Rome for trial, disprove these ignorant attacks on the practices of my early faith.
Finally, the depravities described are no worse then the descriptions of pagan groups in the empire, and we know from both Christian, Zoroastrian, and Pagan Scholars that most of the depravities were minor events in small localized areas, blown out of proportion by those who despised Christianity.

Wow, a Christian that doesn't even know what the No Real Christian Fallacy is; that's an impressive level of ignorance. Allow me to demonstrate using small, easily understood words that won't confuse you:

You: No Christian ever did anything depraved.

Me: *Presents several respected classical historians who say otherwise.

You: Well, no REAL Christian ever did anything depraved.

Then again, you seem to have dropped the No Real Christian line in favor of just going back to hysterical screaming denial of things that I've already disproven several posts ago.

You know, I really have to admire your utter hypocrisy in accusing anyone and everyone of bigotry, when it's clear that you're the one who refuses to accept any history that wasn't written by a member of your own faith. Apparently Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger no longer count as real historians because they aren't Christians...

People from your faith used to be kind of crazy. They got over it and settled down. Deal with it.
Hey bastard, up yours, My comprehension of words is fine. Stop using excuses to hide your lack of intellect, and fess up to the fact that your Northern European ignorance leaves you with no understanding of how to use long words in a coherent sentence. I am well aware with the No Real Christian Fallacy, and since you do a spectacular job of reinterpreting my posts, and ignoring the main parts of them, it isn't surprising that you automatically assume I as a Christian use that argument. Of course real Christians have done depraved things, we are all human and we sin, but Christianity has always denounced those sins, and there has never been a wide following, or any approval in any sect for the level of depravity you claim (even those Gnostic heretics don't go that far). You show a remarkable lack of knowledge for the basic teaching of my faith. We were given the commandment "Thou shall not Murder" when the Israelites were wandering the desert, and hadn't even been told of the coming of the Messiah, centuries before our religion was actually established. Finally pointing out that Gnosticism is not Christianity is not a use of the No real Christian fallacy, they don't hold central tenants of the faith, and are simply a mesh of select bits and pieces of Hellenism, Judaism, Christianity, and local beliefs. Rejected by almost every sect of Christianity, the Gnostic following fell drastically after several centuries, aided unfortunately by the Armenian massacres of Gnostics in the 8th century. Lucky for the Gnostics it had caught on Arabia, thanks to the proselytizing of a guy named Mohammad, who while failing to use it to unify the tribes of the area, was able to establish it as the major faith in the region. His book of wisdom and insights is the most important text to most of the worlds remaining Gnostics, and the Kaaba with its black stone is a sacred relic to most Gnostics, none of these things are part of Christs teachings, and are rejected by the vast majority of the Christian community.

My "hysterical screamings," "hypocrisy" and refusal to "accept any history that wasn't written by a member of your own faith" are actually spectacular examples of your own ignorance. Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger, are all qualified historians, they were just spectacularly ignorant of actual Christian practices, had no contact with actual Christians (beside the brief public trial of Paul), and were part of an elite that saw Christianity as a threat. Also I pointed out that plenty of non-Christian historians have pointed out the complete lack of facts present in their claims or the claims of those people who hate Christains today. I pointed out that British archeologist with and I should add Simcha Jacobovici, an expert in ancient pagan faiths, has conducted research that disproves most of the outrageous claims made by pagans about Christianity.

People of your faith seem to have a tendency to be ignorant bigots, and you just reinforce that stereotype, paganism was just as crazy, and in many ways more so, and while both faiths have settled down some, the depravity of early Christians doesn't come close to your baseless claims, and paganism easily met the level of depravity that was there.

OOC: You are aware that such accusations against the early Christian church were very common in pre-Christian Roman sources, aren't you?
OOC: Yes I am, but I wasn't aware that it extended to canabalism. That was very interesting. BTW I am enjoying this disscusion with you emensly, playing the outraged christian against your ignorant pagan bigot, is most entertaining.:D

IC: One avenue for expansion would have Christianity become a more rural religion in Central Asia. Due to the limits put on the spread of the faith by the Persians, Christianity spread through Central Asia through centers of commerce and trade. Becoming a religion of the urban areas and leaving most of the countryside (with some exceptions) following Zoroaster, the Buddha, local folk faith, or a combination of the above. How Christianity would gain a toe hold in rural Central Asia would be very interesting.

Another interesting challenge would to make India more Christian, Northern India has a good mix of Buddhists, Zoroastrians, and a small influence of Christians, but what if the churches descended from the work of Thomas and his outreach had been more successful in winning converts?

P.S. A great book I just read that I highly recommend for those interested in what Christians actually believe, is Christianity: Its People, Beliefs, and Cultures by Samuel Demir, I gained new insight to the beliefs and history of the Thomasean sect, and the few Nestorians who made it into China.
 
One, no credible source from the area mentions cannibalism, the closest is is Tacticus's outrages claim that we drank our own blood in communion.
Two, the descriptions of depraved Christian practices made by non-Christian sources, were from sources with either no personal contact with its beliefs, or second hand accounts from people who had heard about the evils from someone else. Modern, Non-Christian scholarship has put many of these bigoted claims to rest, pointed out later additions to them, and used sources of non-Christian's who had actually had contact with believers to disprove the more ridiculous claims. Every single Roman era historian was certainly not influenced by the delusions espoused by the anti-Christian Establishment. Many quality sources authenticated by non-Christian scholars that were written by people who actually knew Christians, like Porcius Festus who shipped Paul off to Rome for trial, disprove these ignorant attacks on the practices of my early faith.
Finally, the depravities described are no worse then the descriptions of pagan groups in the empire, and we know from both Christian, Zoroastrian, and Pagan Scholars that most of the depravities were minor events in small localized areas, blown out of proportion by those who despised Christianity.
Well, not every Christian cult was into cannibalistic incest orgies; like I said, Roman society and contact with proper religions had a civilizing influence on Christianity as a whole, which is why those practices have mostly died out by now. Were all early Christians into cannibalism and orgies? No. Were some of them? Yes. Was there an easy way to tell the difference? No.
Hey bastard, up yours,
So much for Christianity being a "religion of peace." :rolleyes:
My comprehension of words is fine. Stop using excuses to hide your lack of intellect, and fess up to the fact that your Northern European ignorance leaves you with no understanding of how to use long words in a coherent sentence. I am well aware with the No Real Christian Fallacy, and since you do a spectacular job of reinterpreting my posts, and ignoring the main parts of them, it isn't surprising that you automatically assume I as a Christian use that argument. Of course real Christians have done depraved things, we are all human and we sin, but Christianity has always denounced those sins, and there has never been a wide following, or any approval in any sect for the level of depravity you claim (even those Gnostic heretics don't go that far). You show a remarkable lack of knowledge for the basic teaching of my faith. We were given the commandment "Thou shall not Murder" when the Israelites were wandering the desert, and hadn't even been told of the coming of the Messiah, centuries before our religion was actually established. Finally pointing out that Gnosticism is not Christianity is not a use of the No real Christian fallacy, they don't hold central tenants of the faith, and are simply a mesh of select bits and pieces of Hellenism, Judaism, Christianity, and local beliefs. Rejected by almost every sect of Christianity, the Gnostic following fell drastically after several centuries, aided unfortunately by the Armenian massacres of Gnostics in the 8th century. Lucky for the Gnostics it had caught on Arabia, thanks to the proselytizing of a guy named Mohammad, who while failing to use it to unify the tribes of the area, was able to establish it as the major faith in the region. His book of wisdom and insights is the most important text to most of the worlds remaining Gnostics, and the Kaaba with its black stone is a sacred relic to most Gnostics, none of these things are part of Christs teachings, and are rejected by the vast majority of the Christian community.
So, essentially you're arguing that Christian groups, like these Gnostics, that did engage in depravity were not "real" Christians, because "real" Christians would never do such things. As for the dogma of your faith, obviously you think these little sectarian differences are really important, but all the groups look pretty much the same to me. Does it really matter whether Your patriarch god and his demigod son were of similar substance, or the exact same substance? Whether he's part human and part divine, or wholly human and divine? The differences seem mostly semantic to me.

Even the Gnostics aren't that different. Don't pretty much all of the different sects claim that your demigod gave their particular sect some sort of special hidden knowledge that only they have access to? If anything, the Gnostics seem like the most sensible faction out of the lot, though that's probably due to the fact that they stole a fair amount of Greek philosophy and incorporated it into their religion. Enlightenment = salvation is just a much more sensible position than the standard Christian "our demigod is so much better than anyone else's because we're special" position.
My "hysterical screamings," "hypocrisy" and refusal to "accept any history that wasn't written by a member of your own faith" are actually spectacular examples of your own ignorance. Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger, are all qualified historians, they were just spectacularly ignorant of actual Christian practices, had no contact with actual Christians (beside the brief public trial of Paul), and were part of an elite that saw Christianity as a threat. Also I pointed out that plenty of non-Christian historians have pointed out the complete lack of facts present in their claims or the claims of those people who hate Christains today.
So, you're saying there was a massive evil conspiracy to make up outrageous claims against your so-pure religion? Impressive, how they managed to come up with such consistent tales of Christian depravity across impressive gulfs of time and space in the Roman era; this must be a very extensive conspiracy indeed. After all, only a few brave Christian historians, and the occasional non-Christian lackey (usually either bankrolled by or closely associated with the Christians) dares to actually spread the truth. :rolleyes:
I pointed out that British archeologist with and I should add Simcha Jacobovici, an expert in ancient pagan faiths, has conducted research that disproves most of the outrageous claims made by pagans about Christianity.
Would this be the same Simcha Jacobovici who's research is largely funded by Christians? That's not to mention the fact that Jacobovici is a media personality, not an expert; he doesn't even have a degree in history or archeology.
People of your faith seem to have a tendency to be ignorant bigots,
Pot. Kettle. Black. Seriously, do you not grasp how that statement is, in fact, an impressive display of bigotry?
paganism was just as crazy, and in many ways more so, and while both faiths have settled down some, the depravity of early Christians doesn't come close to your baseless claims, and paganism easily met the level of depravity that was there.
Really? I'd love to see some examples of civilized Greco-Roman rite paganism engaging in cannibalistic orgies with strangers and family members alike. And please, nothing from your "reliable" Christian sources.
OOC: Yes I am, but I wasn't aware that it extended to canabalism. That was very interesting. BTW I am enjoying this disscusion with you emensly, playing the outraged christian against your ignorant pagan bigot, is most entertaining.:D
OOC: As I recall, the cannibalism thing tied into misunderstand the Eucharist; apparently, a lot Romans missed the fact that Christians consumed bread and wine that symbolized flesh and blood, and thought the action was a bit more literal.

And yes, this is a fair amount of fun.
 
Hey I had an idea, what if the Jewish states of Yemen and Khazaria had adopted Christianity, how would that affect the standing of Christianity? Or conversely, besides obviously making Judaism a smaller religion, what would happen if these kingdoms were unable to stay Jewish, Say the Arab Gnostics took over Yemen, or the Khazars were unable to fend of and stop the pagan Rus encroachment eastward. Maybe a even larger Romanesque sphere with Roman paganism mixing with local beliefs in Siberia and perhaps in parts of Mongolia and northern China unlike the staunchly Asian Siberia we see today.

The Khazars are quite fascinating, a Jewish people covering a ton of Central Asia, with a sizable Zoroastrian component, and a small but decent Christian minority.

OOC: I really think that the Khazars are a truly fascinating study, and I remember seeing a timeline on them a while back, does any one have a link?

IC:
BTW As CQ has proven by his multiple posts including the one above that he is completely ignorant when it comes to Christian history, I would like to inform those reading this thread about two things:
1) Christianity has always been strongly opposed to the despicable acts that he has accused us of. When those accusations do appear in the historical record, it is in the form of anti-Christian ranting by authorities and elites with extreme anti-Christian agendas. (The supporters of the programs against Jews and Christians in Greece during the 8th century comes to mind), and modern scholarship among leading Roman, Chinese, and American researchers, find no basses for these claims. Also many of these claims come from a either a complete ignorance or plain distortion in regard to the Eucharist, in which Christians eat bread and drink wine as SYMBOLS of Christs body and blood that was sacrificed for us. Furthermore as has been already mentioned, Christianity's strong emphasis on brotherly love between fellow man, and its pacifist tendencies make it logical absurd to give these claims credence (if you notice, the Buddhists, Zoroastrian, Hindu, and African pagans who lived with and had greater access to Christian populations, never made any of these claims).
2) Contrary to CQ's attempts to lump Gnostics in with Christians, Gnostics today virtually all fallow the Arab manifestation of the sect that was founded in the early 600s as Gnosticism quickly fell out of favor else where as it received hostility from all major sects of Christianity, and in certain places was actively persecuted. Any other groups of Gnostics are minuscule to the point of insignificance, and still have many similarities with their Arab brethren as none are to far away geographically. These groups just don't accept the Arabs additional holy book. All Gnostic groups today simply take the sect even further away from Christianity then it was originally. It was never Christian, not because of its undue emphasis on mysticism which made most sects uncomfortable with it, but its profoundly unchristian teachings of a fallible God, with perhaps with another deity over him, and has some groups that even claim Christ was a false Messiah. It is mainly focused with internal mystical philosophical searching, and is and was mostly incorporating some Christian teachings into a separate system based on earlier beliefs and practices. If you don't agree with the central beliefs of a religion, it doesn't matter what you claim, you aren't a member of it.
 
Top