More church bullshit exposed.

[Minimalist]

http://www.harpercollins.com/books/The-M...ersecution

In The Myth of Persecution, Candida Moss, a leading expert on early Christianity, reveals how the early church exaggerated, invented, and forged stories of Christian martyrs and how the dangerous legacy of a martyrdom complex is employed today to silence dissent and galvanize a new generation of culture warriors.

According to cherished church tradition and popular belief, before the Emperor Constantine made Christianity legal in the fourth century, early Christians were systematically persecuted by a brutal Roman Empire intent on their destruction. As the story goes, vast numbers of believers were thrown to the lions, tortured, or burned alive because they refused to renounce Christ. These saints, Christianity’s inspirational heroes, are still venerated today.

Moss, however, exposes that the “Age of Martyrs” is a fiction—there was no sustained 300-year-long effort by the Romans to persecute Christians. Instead, these stories were pious exaggerations; highly stylized rewritings of Jewish, Greek, and Roman noble death traditions; and even forgeries designed to marginalize heretics, inspire the faithful, and fund churches.

One imagines the dickheads will now revoke Candida Moss' status as a leading expert on early xtianity. They don't like anyone who tells them that their shit stinks.

[Anomalocaris]

Christainity relied on christians making self-important shit up and playing the victim? Good heavens, min! What things you tell me!

[Minimalist]

Consider it a public service announcement, mon ami.

[Gabriel Syme]

Hi minimalist,

You cant credibly say established history is "bullshit exposed" on the grounds of single book which contradicts the weight of academia!

That is to treat the book the same way some Christians treat the Bible! (ie it says what I want to hear, so it must be right).

It may well be that some parts of history in this regard have been exaggerated or fabricated - all historical records suffer from these problems to some degree, even much more recent history.

However we do have a lot of firm evidence that Christians were persecuted by the Roman Empire.

For one example, we know that Emperor Nero blamed Christians for the great fire in Rome, in 64 AD and that terrible retributions were carried out against them.

The contemporary Roman writer Tacitus - who was not a Christian - wrote:

"Therefore, to stop the rumor [that he had set Rome on fire], he [Emperor Nero] falsely charged with guilt, and punished with the most fearful tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were [generally] hated for their enormities.

Christus, the founder of that name, was put to death as a criminal by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea, in the reign of Tiberius, but the pernicious superstition - repressed for a time, broke out yet again, not only through Judea, - where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, whither all things horrible and disgraceful flow from all quarters, as to a common receptacle, and where they are encouraged.

Accordingly first those were arrested who confessed they were Christians; next on their information, a vast multitude were convicted, not so much on the charge of burning the city, as of "hating the human race."

In their very deaths they were made the subjects of sport: for they were covered with the hides of wild beasts, and worried to death by dogs, or nailed to crosses, or set fire to, and when the day waned, burned to serve for the evening lights. Nero offered his own garden players for the spectacle, and exhibited a Circensian game, indiscriminately mingling with the common people in the dress of a charioteer, or else standing in his chariot. For this cause a feeling of compassion arose towards the sufferers, though guilty and deserving of exemplary capital punishment, because they seemed not to be cut off for the public good, but were victims of the ferocity of one man."

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/christians.htm

(proper references are within the link).

Why would Tacitus lie or invent this, to romanticise early Christians?

He was not a Christian himself and lived in a society where Christians were "generally hated".

He has no motive or gain for inventing stories about Christian persecution.

We also know that, generally, the pagan Romans loved blood sport and brutality in the Arena as a form of entertainment, so despite Tacitus account seemingly very extreme - bloody and inhumane - there is plenty of other evidence to confirm this brutality was a norm of pagan Roman Society.

I've been lucky enough to visit the Colosseum in Rome, and amphitheatres in Trier (Germany) and Pompeii (Italy). The sizes can vary hugely, but they all follow the same pattern - an area surrounded with stadium type seating, with passages leading up from underground - where cells existed to house prisoners/gladiators and pens for wild animals. Sometimes the area floor is actually a false floor, directly on top of the cells etc.

Anyway I must conclude that, at best, the book may expose individual fraudulent stories or incidents, but it in no way overturns established history of persecution.

Cheers
GS

[Cyberman]

Oh dear. This will not end well, I fear.

[Jackalope]

[Minimalist]

You cant credibly say established history is "bullshit exposed" on the grounds of single book which contradicts the weight of academia!

Who told you that? Some priest who just pulled his dick out of an altar boy?

[Gabriel Syme]

You cant credibly say established history is "bullshit exposed" on the grounds of single book which contradicts the weight of academia!

Who told you that? Some priest who just pulled his dick out of an altar boy?

Well no, common sense actually. You know, reason? That which atheists claim to value?

You might think that being insulting etc makes you look clever or intelligent - but it just shows you have nothing useful to say, not to mention makes you look like a immature spastic.

See? I can be unpleasant too. Though, Id much rather show off my good manners, than my bad.

By all means let us engage in intelligent debate, but don't waste my time with infantile rubbish - you are no Christopher Hitchins.

Oaf.

[Cyberman]

I'd just like to point out - and I seem to be doing a lot of this lately - that common sense and reason are not in any way similar, certainly not interchangeable. Common sense tells us that the sky revolves around us once a day. Reason tells common sense to go and play while the grownups talk.

[Angrboda]

Who told you that? Some priest who just pulled his dick out of an altar boy?

Well no, common sense actually. You know, reason? That which atheists claim to value?

You might think that being insulting etc makes you look clever or intelligent - but it just shows you have nothing useful to say, not to mention makes you look like a immature spastic.

The immature spastics of the world resent your condescending tone.