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.

[Jackie]

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]

[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.

[Pat Mustard]

<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.