Paul's Writings Underpin Western Thought

[Angrboda]

You mean aside from his conversion and him legalizing Christianity at the time?  Jesus Christ Brian.

I think you miss the point that countless apologists point to that point in history as when the pagans fell as rulers and when the religion took off. There was nothing to the rise of Christianity other than marketing for it to get as big as it did. Constantine is widely pointed at as the point of when the world changed, according to Christians.

Yeah, whatever. It seems you introduced the question as nothing more than a red herring to distract attention from the failure of your original point.

Constantine saw something in it, otherwise why adapt it? Be it genuine or tactical could care less. It could have been both. But back then if you were a king, you still play politics and you still use religion to play politics.

And now we're back to groundless speculation designed to unshade an opinion that was not well founded.

[Minimalist]

As promised, Candida Moss' observations on the position of the Imperial Cult.

For the Romans, participation in the imperial cult was something that bound the empire together. Much like the pledge of allegiance, it was a communal ritual that solidified social ties between individuals on a local level and disparate regions and groups on an imperial level. In times of political or social instability, the imperial cult became particularly important as a form of steadying the ebb and flow of potential unrest.

 The Christians, as is by now clear, would not participate in the imperial cult, and to the Romans, this state of affairs was dangerous. From an ancient perspective, the presence of a religiously noncompliant group in any community was a threat to that community. Human flourishing was a delicate affair, and religion was one way in which health, political success, independence, good harvest, fine weather, and all aspects of everyday life were managed. The Christians threatened all of this. They threatened to disrupt the pax deorum (“peace of the gods”) and, in doing so, invited destruction on everyone. For the Romans, Christians’ nonparticipation in the imperial cult was threatening. Their stubbornness was not just disrespectful and iconoclastic; it could potentially bring down the empire.

Xtians, far from being the pious shits they love to portray themselves as being were subversive fucks.  Still, actual official persecution was exceeding rare.  Moss deals with Decius ( despite admitting that his decree was not aimed at xhristards alone ), Valierian and Diocletian.

[Brian37]

I think you miss the point that countless apologists point to that point in history as when the pagans fell as rulers and when the religion took off. There was nothing to the rise of Christianity other than marketing for it to get as big as it did. Constantine is widely pointed at as the point of when the world changed, according to Christians.

Yeah, whatever.  It seems you introduced the question as nothing more than a red herring to distract attention from the failure of your original point.

Constantine saw something in it, otherwise why adapt it? Be it genuine or tactical could care less. It could have been both. But back then if you were a king, you still play politics and you still use religion to play politics.

And now we're back to groundless speculation designed to unshade an opinion that was not well founded.

So Constantine didn't adapt Christianity? He had no political power? Ok. I would think a King would have lots of power and influence being the head of the state.

[Minimalist]

Brian, Constantine II's parents, Constantine I and Helena were either xtians or sympathizers.  When Diocletian actually did begin an official persecution of xtians it was noted that Constantine I was less enthusiastic about enforcing the edict than his counterpart, Galerian, in the east.  And Helena was a famed xhristard pilgrim and bullshit artist.  So Constantine II probably grew up with a lot of xtian bullshit being dumped on him or around him.  Nonetheless, he seems to have remained a firm devotee of Sol Invictus which would have been popular in the army. 

Look at it in modern terms.   The Orange Fucktard has had advisors like Tillerson, Bannon, McMasters, and Miller.  He is as transparent as Saran Wrap so it is easy to see which of his advisors he is listening to at any given time.  At 1,700 years removed it is a bit harder with Constantine but even then there were factions.  Xtians love to talk about how Constantine II convened the Council of Nicaea - probably because his advisors were telling him that there was a problem - but they are less inclined to talk about how this "saint" of theirs spent much of the rest of his time murdering his enemies.  Xtians were always cherry-pickers!

[SteveII]

What does Paul say that would be so different than the philosophies that come before him? What parts of the uniquely Christian worldview have been assumed even by the secular western mind?

First, was the message unique? If you actually know anything about the NT, I don't think you can legitimately argue it was not unique. "Jews demand signs and Greeks search for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. (I Cor 1:22-24).

Jesus was a deity like no other. Loving, sacrificing, redemption--all powerful messages that had mass appeal and worldview implications. Matthew 5's "Blessed are the..." and "You have heard it said..." is filled with counter-cultural, worldview-forming dictates.  The Good Samaritan was a powerful parable.  It should be noted with emphasis that Christianity was founded not on what Jesus taught, but who he was and what he accomplished. It change the perspective from the here and now to the big picture of reality.

1. Intrinsic value. The Roman and Greek view was not that people had intrinsic values just for being people. When Paul said such things like "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:28) this was revolutionary. Your birth, your societal status, your nationality, your gender does not give you value in the eyes of God. That would be a very appealing message to entire classes of people who were told otherwise and often lived brutal lives as a consequence.

There are actually a number of things wrapped up in this issue. If you believe everyone is highly valued by God, your worldview must change over time. Things like education and hospitals and social welfare are natural extensions of your worldview. I'm not saying if not for Christianity, then we would not have these, but I think that we can find other cultures to make a comparison and it turns out this is a very far-reaching feature of a Christian worldview.

2. Natural Law. The NT put some flesh on the "divine spark" of the Stoics and fills in all the gaps of where it comes from. Today, we have the concept of natural law and natural rights that are substantially more robust than that of the Aristotle or Cicero. The shift can be traced back to the spread of Christianity when Paul said things like "Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the Law, do by nature what the Law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the Law, since they show that the work of the Law is written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts either accusing or defending them. (Rom 2:14-15)

3. Women. Since this will be controversial, I will just quote the Wikipedia Article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_Ch...cs_and_law
Rome had a social caste system, with women having "no legal independence and no independent property."[42] Early Christianity, as Pliny the Younger explains in his letters to Emperor Trajan, had people from "every age and rank, and both sexes."[43] Pliny reports arresting two slave women who claimed to be 'deaconesses' in the first decade of the second century...

The New Testament refers to a number of women in Jesus’ inner circle. There are several Gospel accounts of Jesus imparting important teachings to and about women: his meeting with the Samaritan woman at the well, his anointing by Mary of Bethany, his public admiration for a poor widow who donated two copper coins to the Temple in Jerusalem, his stepping to the aid of the woman accused of adultery, his friendship with Mary and Martha the sisters of Lazarus, and the presence of Mary Magdalene, his mother, and the other women as he was crucified. Historian Geoffrey Blainey concludes that "as the standing of women was not high in Palestine, Jesus' kindnesses towards them were not always approved by those who strictly upheld tradition."[46]

According to Christian apologist Tim Keller, it was common in the Greco-Roman world to expose female infants because of the low status of women in society. The church forbade its members to do so. Greco-Roman society saw no value in an unmarried woman, and therefore it was illegal for a widow to go more than two years without remarrying. Christianity did not force widows to marry and supported them financially. Pagan widows lost all control of their husband's estate when they remarried, but the church allowed widows to maintain their husband's estate. Christians did not believe in cohabitation. If a Christian man wanted to live with a woman, the church required marriage, and this gave women legal rights and far greater security. Finally, the pagan double standard of allowing married men to have extramarital sex and mistresses was forbidden. Jesus' teachings on divorce and Paul's advocacy of monogamy began the process of elevating the status of women so that Christian women tended to enjoy greater security and equality than did women in surrounding cultures.

4. Nature of Reality. The Judeo-Christian teaching that God created the universe as a mechanistic object and as such was both knowable and discoverable. This causal understanding of the world would eventually support the inductive reasoning necessary to infer laws from observations and the Scientific Method. Of course the Greeks and the Romans were on the right path but having this concept codified in a religion helps tremendously to make it a part of the western mind. There are many other worldviews that science would not have risen from.

5. Freedom, Civil Rights, etc. "Universalistic egalitarianism, from which sprang the ideals of freedom and a collective life in solidarity, the autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of continual critical appropriation and reinterpretation. To this day, there is no alternative to it. And in light of the current challenges of a postnational constellation, we continue to draw on the substance of this heritage. Everything else is just idle postmodern talk." (Jürgen Habermas [agnostic] - "Time of Transitions", Polity Press, 2006, pp. 150-151, translation of an interview from 1999).

6. Hope. Many cultures (even today) have a version of fatalism as part of their worldview. This is not how a western mind is wired. I think the Christian influence has ingrained in us a perception that we are not entirely determined. There are so many verses about hope--here is one: "Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we[a] have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we[b]boast in the hope of the glory of God.  Not only so, but we[c] also glory in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance;  perseverance, character; and character, hope.  And hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us. (Rom 5:1-5).

This is not a complete list nor is any of the points fully fleshed out. I just thought to get some things down to spark discussion.

Jorm asked what my point was. I am exploring to what extent Christianity had an effect on how the western mind thinks and by extension western culture. I had not thought too much about how a radical new religious belief could effect long-term change in non-religious aspects so as not to realize the connection.

[The Grand Nudger]

Paul didn't say people can't have slaves. He just said they were equal under god. While he did say you can't have sex with people you aren't married to,(shitty to unmarried people but would prevent some rapes) he didn't say you can't rape your child wife. Which I'm sure happened.

Muslim Magic Book tries to thread that needle as well.  All may be equal before god...but neither ideology was willing to go to bat against the prevailing norm of chattel slavery man-to-man at the time of their inception.  To much risk, no reward.  Assuming..for the lulz..that god talked to all the nitwits who claim a direct line...they heard god say "and quit the slavery shit"....and thought to themselves.."let's ease that one in when we have a little purchase." - simply failing to record the lord of the cosmos enlightened stance on the autonomy of all human beings.

: snickers:

What does Paul say that would be so different than the philosophies that come before him?

Nothing. A fact opined upon at length by the earliest christian apologists whenever some pagan asshole decided that the whole story was entirely too ludicrous. "-but what are we saying that you haven't heard before?"

What parts of the uniquely Christian worldview have been assumed even by the secular western mind?

You got that half backward. The amount of detritus that christianity soaked up from The Western Mind™ was sufficient as differentiation from eastern and near eastern religions such as the one it makes a claim to pedigree from. Most importantly..the western plurality of divinity, dormant for a thousand years..would re-lay the groundwork for secular authority. In the longer view of history..the primacy of theocracy in the christian sense was a short aberration.

Those items you mentioned above were directly lifted from the hellenic element of christendom. Not likely to be the most salient in your own christianity (that would be pagan european syncretism).....but still.

Undercutting the central contention of this giggle worthy claim that christianity is unique...would it actually matter if it were.....? No, OFC not.

[GUBU]

<null space>

First of all, what writings of Paul? Point me to a single word that a proper scholar (I was going to say "you" there, but then I realised you'd gladly lie to "prove" your jesus) could say was written by Saul of Tarsus.

Second we are talking about a person that we literally have not one single iota of evidence existed as if he were a historical person.

Thirdly the whole of christian theology is stolen, raggedy and dumbed down Platonic philosophy, changed just enough to ensure that the popes and kings stayed on the top and exploited us plebs sordidae.

---

Secularism is Christianity's greatest gift to the world

And my opinion of Holland took a rapid nosedive when I read him saying this, from the article Succubus linked to. Anybody who can call secularism a christian "gift" hasn't the first fucking iota of what they are talking about when they talk about christianity. That religion is and always has been a staunch and inverterate enemy of secularism.

[The Grand Nudger]

The utility of a slaves religion has never been lost on emperors.  

---

Yet still condemned gays and really had a big problem with sex in general. 

Baby steps.......baby steps.

[Angrboda]

And now we're back to groundless speculation designed to unshade an opinion that was not well founded.

So Constantine didn't adapt Christianity? He had no political power? Ok. I would think a King would have lots of power and influence being the head of the state.

Well, thank you for that interesting straw man, Brian. Now why don't you swallow your pride and just admit you were wrong in claiming that Constantine adopted Christianity as a political expedient. Or should I prepare myself for more pointless face saving bullshit?

[The Grand Nudger]

Constantine -did- adopt christianity as a political expedient, though.....?

Whatever else it may have been...it was that as well.