Emperor Constantine changed Christianity from an illegal cult to a state religion just in time to preserve the empire.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great_and_Christianity

"During the reign of the Roman emperor Constantine the Great (306–337 AD), Christianity began to transition to the dominant religion of the Roman Empire."

But the Roman Empire depended on slave labor. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome

"Slavery in ancient Rome played an important role in society and the economy. Unskilled or low-skill slaves labored in the fields, mines, and mills with few opportunities for advancement and little chance of freedom. Skilled and educated slaves—including artisans, chefs, domestic staff and personal attendants, entertainers, business managers, accountants and bankers, educators at all levels, secretaries and librarians, civil servants, and physicians—occupied a more privileged tier of servitude and could hope to obtain freedom through one of several well-defined paths with protections under the law."

What better way to keep the slaves happy than to promise them mansions in the afterlife? Mormonism goes the extra mile by using its members as slave labor for God. Constantine would have found his vision of Christianity an easy sell among the aristocracy. Take the burden off the state regarding social services and pacify the slaves at the same time. It's a win win.

Everything about christinsanity was stolen from earlier religions.

It's an "I Dream of Genie" remake of ancient Sumerian religions, with a poor but charismatic carpenter instead of Elizabeth Montgomery. If I told a complete stranger to quit their job and follow me, they would tell me to f-off. Miracles are one thing in a sitcom, another in real life.

But what sets Christianity apart is the brutal repression of its competitors. It was elevated to protected status at the same time gnostics were put to death. This tells me the "powers that be" were behind it's mass adoption. It was astroturfed.

To defend modern Christianity, it was a major innovation in government. Its decline in modern times may have led to less societal stability.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/14/2024 06:04AM by bradley.

bradley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's an "I Dream of Genie" remake of ancient
> Sumerian religions, with a poor but charismatic
> carpenter instead of Elizabeth Montgomery.

I’m a fact nut

Barbara Eden

Every Empire was a "slave state" two thousand years ago. The difference is that Christian societies were the first to abolish slavery.

Anybody's comment about it being a "religion for the poor and slaves" is a tired old cliche, repeated by Nietzsche etc who termed its values "slave morality". Surprisingly early on there is evidence of wealthy people being involved in slavery. Even the NT provides evidence, like Paul's educated (and suspicious) back story, or the book of Philemon which is written to a Christian slave owner. Some of the other people documented in the NT as early Christians were members of the Roman military, corrupt tax collectors and so on. We know from Roman records that not all early Christians were dirt poor, and that's how the religion survived and gained dominance.

TLDR: It is easy to make trite claims about Christianity emerging from the slave class, but the reality is more complex.

> Anybody's comment about it being a "religion for
> the poor and slaves" is a tired old cliche,
> repeated by Nietzsche etc who termed its values
> "slave morality".

Yet another philosopher, like Tocqueville, Malthus, Marx, and even Orwell, whom you have either never read or never understood.

Why do you do this to yourself?

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Anybody's comment about it being a "religion
> for
> > the poor and slaves" is a tired old cliche,
> > repeated by Nietzsche etc who termed its values
> > "slave morality".
>
> Yet another philosopher, like Tocqueville,
> Malthus, Marx, and even Orwell, whom you have
> either never read or never understood.

Oh yes, the old "you don't agree with me so you never understood it properly" line. Not only do I have a pretty good grasp of their ideas, Since I know some German, I can read Nietzsche (and Marx) in the original and have done so many times. Nietzsche writes the most beautifully of all the folk you've just mentioned. A true artist albeit one who was often wrong. You're just angry I pointed out the main origin of this "slave" trope. Nietzsche's views on religion were complex and shaped by his relationship with his father.

I've read the majority of Orwell's published work and more Marx than most Marxists. Last time I provided an authentic quote from him it disappeared. Which you love, because lying and omission are the only ways you think you can win an argument.

Anyway, I'm in the theater just now and the intermission's over. Can't have people accusing me of not watching the show properly.

> Oh yes, the old "you don't agree with me so you
> never understood it properly" line.

We'll see about that, Shah of Afghanistan, Mayan of Western Europe, believer that 1984 was about the USSR, reader who thought Malthus was a liberal.


---------------------
> Not only do I
> have a pretty good grasp of their ideas, Since I
> know some German, I can read Nietzsche (and Marx)
> in the original and have done so many times.

You didn't get to page 40 in the two-volume tome written by Tocqueville and now expect us to believe you have read "many times" Karl Marx, whose Das Kapital is three volumes and almost 3000 pages, with your "some German?"

That doesn't pass the smell test.


----------------
> You're just angry I
> pointed out the main origin of this "slave" trope.
> Nietzsche's views on religion were complex and
> shaped by his relationship with his father.

Thus you underscore my claim that your claimed expertise is vastly greater than your actual knowledge. Nietzsche's FATHER had virtually no influence over Nietzsche's philosophical views. The old man spent his last year of life suffering from incapacitating brain disease and then died when Friedrich was four years old. Any influence the man might have had on his son ceased when the child was three.

What you might have said, had truly understood Nietzsche, was that his views on religion were heavily influenced by his MOTHER and his two PATERNAL AUNTS, who in fact reared him. It would be easy enough for me to explain how Friedrich's views on Christianity and slave morality reflected his experience with THOSE WOMEN and their very narrow, servile, and stultifying form of Lutheranism, but what's the point? You're impervious to facts.


------------------
> I've read the majority of Orwell's published work
> and more Marx than most Marxists.

Yes, you're very well read when it comes to political philosophy and particularly Orwell. That's why you told us that 1984 was a critique of the USSR rather than of the West.


-------------
> Which you love, because lying and
> omission are the only ways you think you can win
> an argument.

Identify one lie I have told from any of our exchanges over the last decade.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/15/2024 01:56AM by Lot's Wife.

"You didn't get to page 40 in the two-volume tome written by Tocqueville"

You seem to believe that repeating falsehoods like this one makes them true. It doesn't. This is what the internet does to people... If repeating an untruth is your main line of argument, get a new one.

"1984" is a satire of the USSR as well as London in 1948, and Orwell's experiences in Catalonia with POUM during the Civil War there. Clearly you think you know better than all the academics who have written about the Soviet influences on the book. Big Brother himself is clearly based on Stalin not any British prime minister or royal. Even 2+2=5 is a reference to a famous Soviet poster on the Five Year Plan.

Heck, I've even been inside the building in ?Bloomsbury in London which Minitrue/the Ministry of Truth is based on, just as I've stood in Nietzsche's old home in Weimar.

Your comments on Nietzsche's father are trite and misleading. Up to a few generations ago, it was kind of a big deal to be the son of the local Pfarrer (pastor) in a small town like Roecken, much like it would be to be the son of the local doctor etc. Friedrich may have spent most of his life away from Roecken but was buried there. He would have been constantly reminded much of his early life that he was a "son of the manse" (to use the Scottish phrase). People both inside and outside the family would have asked him if he wished to become a pastor himself. It's pretty silly to assume that the dead — here we are talking about such a person! Relatives can (and do) exert an indirect influence after they die, and I'm not talking in any supernatural sense.

"Identify one lie I have told from any of our exchanges over the last decade."

There are two above. The notion I only got forty pages into De Tocqueville or that "1984" has no Soviet element. You'll be telling us "Animal Farm" is merely about livestock.

> You seem to believe that repeating falsehoods like
> this one makes them true. It doesn't. This is what
> the internet does to people... If repeating an
> untruth is your main line of argument, get a new
> one.

My bad. You are absolutely right. I said yesterday that you didn't get to page 40 and that was incorrect. In fact, we established that you got to page 48 (although you apparently didn't read page 47).

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2509074,2509789#msg-2509789


--------------------
> "1984" is a satire of the USSR as well as London
> in 1948, and Orwell's experiences in Catalonia
> with POUM during the Civil War there.

There it is again: deflection. You know that 1984 is NOT about the USSR but about Western Europe becoming totalitarian. Rather than acknowledge your error, however, you try to change the topic to Homage to Catalonia and hope no one notices.

Yet we saw long ago that you didn't understand Catalonia, for you assured us that Orwell renounced Marxism and became a proud conservative like you despite his saying IN THAT VERY BOOK that he remained a communist after turning against the USSR.

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2226302,2226387#msg-2226387


------------------
Next there are Nietzsche and Marx, both of whom you claimed above to have read "many times" in the original German. Here you don't even bother to defend that spurious boast.

But the gift keeps on giving. With regard to Nietzsche, you assured us that his "views were . . . shaped by his relationship with his father." That was of course nonsense, since his father was out of the picture when Nietzsche was three.

Now watch the worm wriggle:

> Your comments on Nietzsche's father are trite and
> misleading. Up to a few generations ago, it was
> kind of a big deal to be the son of the local
> Pfarrer (pastor) in a small town like Roecken,
> much like it would be to be the son of the local
> doctor etc. Friedrich may have spent most of his
> life away from Roecken but was buried there. He
> would have been constantly reminded much of his
> early life that he was a "son of the manse" (to
> use the Scottish phrase). People both inside and
> outside the family would have asked him if he
> wished to become a pastor himself. It's pretty
> silly to assume that the dead — here we are
> talking about such a person! Relatives can (and
> do) exert an indirect influence after they die,
> and I'm not talking in any supernatural sense.

That's quite a paragraph. When confronted with the fact that Nietzsche's father could not possibly have influenced the philosopher, you tell us that Nietzsche's home town and neighbors are the same thing as his father.

Do you think anyone will buy that?


------------------
As for mistakes on my part. . .

> There are two above. The notion I only got forty
> pages into De Tocqueville or that "1984" has no
> Soviet element.

Yes, with regard to Tocqueville, I said you didn't get to page 40 and that was wrong. As I admitted above, "you got to page 48 (although you apparently didn't read page 47)."

Regarding 1984, you're squirming again. I never said 1984 "has no Soviet element."


----------------
> You'll be telling us "Animal Farm"
> is merely about livestock.

If I recall correctly, you were the one who didn't understand Animal Farm. Indeed, you conflated it with 1984.

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2226302,2226432#msg-2226432


--------------------
Anyway, I've detained you long enough. You can get back to reading Karl Marx. . . in the original text. . . with your "some German."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/15/2024 06:25PM by Lot's Wife.

##########

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spread_of_Christianity#Roman_Empire


Christianity spread to Aramaic-speaking peoples along the Mediterranean coast and also to the inland parts of the Roman Empire,[41] and beyond that into the Parthian Empire and the later Sasanian Empire, including Assyria and Mesopotamia, which was dominated at different times and to varying extents by these empires. In AD 301, the Kingdom of Armenia became the first state to declare Christianity as its state religion, following the conversion of the Royal House of the Arsacids in Armenia, although the Neo-Assyrian kingdom of Osroene became Christian earlier. With Christianity the dominant faith in some urban centers, Christians accounted for approximately 10% of the Roman population by 300, according to some estimates.[42] Christianity then rapidly grew in the 4th century, accounting for 56.5% of the Roman population by 350.[43]

By the latter half of the second century, Christianity had spread east throughout Media, Persia, Parthia, and Bactria. The twenty bishops and many presbyters were more of the order of itinerant missionaries, passing from place to place as Paul did and supplying their needs with such occupations as merchant or craftsman.

...
...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/14/2024 03:26PM by Maude.

Walt Disney could make a movie out of that.

From the same Wiki article --

"Bart D. Ehrman attributes the rapid spread of Christianity to five factors: (1) the promise of salvation and eternal life for everyone was an attractive alternative to Roman religions; (2) stories of miracles and healings purportedly showed that the one Christian God was more powerful than the many Roman gods; (3) Christianity began as a grassroots movement providing hope of a better future in the next life for the lower classes; (4) Christianity took worshipers away from other religions since converts were expected to give up the worship of other gods, unusual in antiquity where worship of many gods was common; (5) in the Roman world, converting one person often meant converting the whole household—if the head of the household was converted, he decided the religion of his wife, children and slaves."

So two of those factors offered the poor and downtrodden something to look forward to, along with the hope that the supposedly powerful Christian god might be able to intervene on their behalf.

https://teachdemocracy.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-13-4-b-religious-tolerance-and-persecution-in-the-roman-empire

"To all its subject peoples, Rome granted religious toleration as long as they also honored Roman gods."

The ban on Christianity worked about the same as today's "war on drugs". It grew anyway in spite of waves of intense persecution. Christianity was too tough to die, hence my hypothesis that Constantine used it as a political tool. So I think we can see where the legalization of weed is going.

Institutionalized slavery long precedes this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery

Is the OP suggesting some sort of enabling or (Gasp) causation?

Napoleon said religion keeps the poor from killing the rich.

There's a story arc. The rich invent religion for self-preservation reasons but it leads to the Magna Carta, individual freedom, and the eventual downfall of slavery.

Or at least its redefinition. You are no longer a slave. You are now an employee but you work the same hours as before.

The most cleaver kind of slavery is having your subjects think they are free but they actually are slaves.

The church sought to stop Christians enslaving other Christians, not non-Christians.

###########

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_medieval_Europe#Early_Middle_Ages

Slavery in the Early Middle Ages (500–1000) was initially a continuation of earlier Roman practices from late antiquity, and was continued by an influx of captives in the wake of the social chaos caused by the barbarian invasions of the Western Roman Empire.[1] With the continuation of Roman legal practices of slavery, new laws and practices concerning slavery spread throughout Europe.[2] For example, the Welsh laws of Hywel the Good included provisions dealing with slaves.[3](p 44) In the Germanic realms, laws instituted the enslavement of criminals, such as the Visigothic Code’s prescribing enslavement for criminals who could not pay financial penalties for their crimes[5] and as an actual punishment for various other crimes.[6] Such criminals would become slaves to their victims, often with their property.

As these peoples Christianized, the church worked more actively to reduce the practice of holding coreligionists in bondage.[7] St. Patrick, who himself was captured and enslaved at one time, protested an attack that enslaved newly baptized Christians in his letter to the soldiers of Coroticus.[3](p 43) The restoration of order and the growing power of the church slowly transmuted the late Roman slave system of Diocletian into serfdom.[citation needed]

Another major factor was the rise of Bathilde (626–680), queen of the Franks, who had been enslaved before marrying Clovis II. When she became regent, her government outlawed slave-trading of Christians throughout the Merovingian empire.[8] About ten percent of England’s population entered in the Domesday Book (1086) were slaves,[9] despite chattel slavery of English Christians being nominally discontinued after the 1066 conquest. It is difficult to be certain about slave numbers, however, since the old Roman word for slave (servus) continued to be applied to unfree people whose status later was reflected by the term serf.[10]

Obviously Chistianity did not emerge from Rome but from Judea. Rome was the major catalyst for its growth after years of being its potential destroyer.

So did Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Shinto, Judaism and Voodoo.

Ah, voodoo. Nice replacement for Mormonism, especially if you miss the priesthood.

Actually, nearly all countries at that time, especially in Europe, were slave states. What I find to be of more interest, and ironically so, is that it was Christians who actually destroyed the Roman Empire. It was also Christians who burned and sacked Rome in 475 A.D. to make sure their Bible prophecies were fulfilled. All of this is ironic now because the Roman Catholic church claimed for many years that it kept the intellectual works of Rome and its civilization alive even after the empire fell.

blindguy, can you help me understand these points?


--------
> . . . it was Christians who actually destroyed the
> Roman Empire. It was also Christians who burned
> and sacked Rome in 475 A.D. . .

What confuses me is that while the Germans who had migrated into the Roman Empire before 475 had largely accepted Christianity--albeit in many cases Arianism rather than Catholicism--they were not the ones who destroyed the empire. The Germans who did that were non-Christian tribes who were still outside the borders.


---------------
> . . . to make sure their
> Bible prophecies were fulfilled.

I trust that is not an assertion that the non-Christian Germans and Alans and Scythians/Sarmatians and ultimately Huns thought they were fulfilling Biblical prophesies.


----------------
> All of this is
> ironic now because the Roman Catholic church
> claimed for many years that it kept the
> intellectual works of Rome and its civilization
> alive even after the empire fell.

That's not entirely untrue, is it? While the Orthodox and Muslim countries were ultimately more responsible for the preservation of Greek and Roman institutions, within the confines of Western Europe the Catholic Church and its monasteries surely saved a lot of Roman culture for future centuries.


------------------
Am I missing anything?

LW, I did some checking and it turns out we might both be right.

First of all, there were two sacks of Rome, one around 440 A.D. and one around 450 A.D. The latter sack was done bya group called the Vandalls who were originally from North Africa. I can't find anything suggesting that they were Christians before their sack of the city.

The first sack, however, was done by the Visigoths. and yes, that group was largely Christian before participating in its sacking of Rome. The Wikipedia entry on that group's Christian conversion can be found at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_Christianity

So yes. Christians were involved in one of the sackings of Rome.

Also, while I agree with you that the monasteries did keep much of Roman antiquities alive, they didn't keep them all, and those they kept they put to use as service in their own religious faith.

The Vandals were from northeastern Europe. Like the Visigoths, Ostrogoths, and other Germanic peoples, they covered huge ranges of territory; in the Vandals' case from the Baltic toward eastern Rome, then to the West and down through Iberia to Northern Africa, and thence to Rome, Greece, and even the Black Sea. The Ostrogoths went as far as modern Iraq.

The various tribes--tourists in our modern political argot--traveled in competition and cooperation with the Huns, who began north of China and went as far west as France; and the Alans and other Scythians, who likewise journeyed far and wide in search of things to steal, violate, and burn.

Yes, parts of some tribes converted to Christianity, but I am not convinced they took their new religion seriously. The Arians, for instance, were enemies of Catholicism; and a lot of tribes were not Christian enough to stop their bloodshed.

Meanwhile your point that the Catholic Church only preserved those Roman things that served its interests is impossible to refute.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The various tribes--tourists in our modern
> political argot

Migrants in your modern political argot.

##########


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vae_victis


According to tradition, in 390 BC, an army of Gauls led by Brennus attacked Rome, capturing all of the city except for the Capitoline Hill. Brennus besieged the hill, and finally the Romans asked to ransom their city. Brennus demanded 1,000 pounds (329 kg) of gold, and the Romans agreed to his terms.[4] According to Plutarch's Life of Camillus and Livy's Ab Urbe Condita (Book 5 Sections 34–49),[5][6] the Gauls provided steelyard balances and weights, which were used to measure the amount of gold. The Romans brought the gold, but claimed that the provided weights were rigged in the Gauls' favor. The Romans complained to Brennus, who took his sword, threw it onto the weights, and exclaimed, "Vae victis!" The Romans thus needed to bring even more gold, as they now had to counterbalance the sword as well.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/21/2024 11:16AM by anybody.

Ephesians 6:1
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart.

HH =)

    Do you know what else likely 'emerged' from a slave state?

    Marriage!

    This can be totally proven using metadata!!!

Honey works better than chains.

"Do I have to choose?"

--Anonymous accordion player

I was once a convinced Marxist. I am now an equally convinced anti-communist. But I still find these words of Marx, which were once essential to my becoming a Marxist, to be extremely apt and important:

"Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."

"But I would not feel so all alone
Everybody must get stoned!"

- Bob Dylan

There comes a time when we leave such false prophets behind.

"True religion" is an oxymoron. They are all made up.

However, even the axioms of mathematics are normative truths. They are only accepted because they have stood the test of time. The thing that separates a religion from a cult is that a cult has no due diligence. Simon Says is not due diligence.