Ask A Catholic III

[Linkman226]

Of all the cults that have existed, only some have been successful, in fact, only a very, very small percentage. They include Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, and so on and so forth. Cult success rate is never very high. The only reason we are debating this today is because YOUR cult was more successful than other cults, such as, say, Mithraism or the Cult of Isis.

 

[Jehoshua]

That would depend on whether you consider mormonism a dangerous cult in the sense your using.

But irrespective of if you do, mormonism would be an example of a societal paridigm which facilitates such an expansion. You have the missionaries for example which are an integral part of the religion (door to door) and then once someone is converted there is an immense communal structure that aids in retaining members. Another important factor is that this occurs in a society which permits freedom of religion. You don't see people going around crucifying mormons for example, which allows for this re-inforcement to persist.

Now if you go back to the early christians the pressure was on the otehr foot. There was immense social pressure to practice the pagan rites, since orthopraxy was a paramount concern. Ergo practicing certain rites of paganism was considered a civic duty and to fail to do that was to ostracise yourself from society and invoke the societies wrath, this especially being so considering a new religion almost automatically earns the ire of the host society, meaning that an unreasonable cult in the sense you originally used would not feasibly spread far.

-

Now as to Linkman226's post

But here you are changing your definition of cult. Now you appear to be using it in the original terminology of simply a form of religious practice, instead of what you implies earlier, that being dangerous cults. Now if what you are saying is that the success rate of religions in regards to global expansion is never very high in the last 2000 years then thats hardly a point. One could easily say such religions are distinct from the standard dangerous cult in that they hold to a certain level of rationality that facilitates adoption on a global scale.

 

[Perfection]

Mormons suffered persecution and a society that demanded the practice of a different religion (Christianity) as well. I think there are non-miraculous reasons for Christianity's ascendance. For instance Christianity certainly does have a proselytizing element to it.

 

[Jehoshua]

Mormons suffered persecution and a society that demanded the practice of a different religion (Christianity) as well. I think there are non-miraculous reasons for Christianity's ascendance. For instance Christianity certainly does have a proselytizing element to it.

a yes, but it survived because the core population migrated to the region around Utah providing an isolated society that was self-reinforcing and encouraging to mormonism and didn't face the rigours of persisting within a hostile host population.

Of course there are plenty of non-miraculour reasons for christianities ascendance, ergo its (at least traditional orthodox christianity) rational, has a charitable component that was lacking in the religion romana and has a focus on belief instead of orthopraxy. As to a proselytising element, naturally it has one, go forth and spread the gospel. However it does not exist within the same paradigm as mormonism especially in the early christian context.

 

[Perfection]

a yes, but it survived because the core population migrated to the region around Utah providing an isolated society that was self-reinforcing and encouraging to mormonism and didn't face the rigours of persisting within a hostile host population.

Did not Christians form their own communities early on?

 

[Linkman226]

This still doesn't prove the existence of a god. One of the defining characteristics of a successful cult is that the members are convinced that NOT being part of it results in terrible consequences. Another is that it can't deviate TOO radically from existing norms. The fact that Christianity had a concept of God made sure people didn't think it was as batshit crazy as we think certain modern cults are, but it succeeded unlike ancient pagan cults like the Cult of Isis or Mithraism because those cults did not claim a monopoly on truth (you could belong to more than one), and did not claim that if you WEREN'T part of them, you'd be eternally damned. Therefore Christianity outcompeted other cults.

 

[Jehoshua]

Did not Christians form their own communities early on?

The christian community existed within the core pagan society, not in their own little ghettos. In fact the christian population early on for the most part was urban. The word pagan itself implies a rural person, and came into use centuries down the line of time when the cities had a christian majority and the countryside remained predominantly pagan.

This still doesn't prove the existence of a god. One of the defining characteristics of a successful cult is that the members are convinced that NOT being part of it results in terrible consequences. Another is that it can't deviate TOO radically from existing norms. The fact that Christianity had a concept of God made sure people didn't think it was as batshit crazy as we think certain modern cults are, but it succeeded unlike ancient pagan cults like the Cult of Isis or Mithraism because those cults did not claim a monopoly on truth (you could belong to more than one), and did not claim that if you WEREN'T part of them, you'd be eternally damned. Therefore Christianity outcompeted other cults.

You weren't asking me to proove the existence of a deity, rather you were asking me if I had a reason for holding to catholic theology compared to simply faith.

As to your comments here. Christianity did depart radically from the existing pagan norm and was for that time period totally shocking.

As I previously mentioned paganism was intrinsic to the society and participation was considered a civic duty. If you forfeited that duty the society thought the gods would cause all manner of havoc on society. Indeed during the late roman empire a great deal of blame was shifted onto christians for offending the gods and causing their problems. Christianity within that time period was also radically different in that it wasn;t historic. Judaism for example was held simply to be one peoples worship of Zeus alone by the pagans, other religions and gods were just thought of as local expressions of the greco-roman pantheon. Christianity departed from this because it was new and was not a historic religion. Indeed Christians were accused of atheism because they rejected the pagan pantheon and because as it was new it was totally impossible to reconcile to the pre-existing pagan worldview in regards to the gods.

 

[Linkman226]

Yes, that's correct, pagan actually means farmer. My questions remains unanswered.

 

[NBAfan]

Yes, that's correct, pagan actually means farmer. My questions remains unanswered.

What question? That spiritual things don't have empirical evidence?

 

[Perfection]

The christian community existed within the core pagan society, not in their own little ghettos. In fact the christian population early on for the most part was urban. The word pagan itself implies a rural person, and came into use centuries down the line of time when the cities had a christian majority and the countryside remained predominantly pagan.

Do you have a compelling way of demonstrating that (it's okay if you don't, I would drop the subject without it reflecting poorly on you).

 

[civ_king]

Of all the cults that have existed, only some have been successful, in fact, only a very, very small percentage. They include Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, and so on and so forth. Cult success rate is never very high. The only reason we are debating this today is because YOUR cult was more successful than other cults, such as, say, Mithraism or the Cult of Isis.

I'd like to point out that Islam was a unifying force that turned the people into one group that kind of went on a conquering spree and taxed everyone to convert. Judaism wasn't very successful after proselytization was banned and Hinduism is a snowball that kind of picked everything up in it's path. Buddhism made people thing suffering was good and accept "their lot in life".

That leaves Christianity which was heavily oppressed because it was considered a serious threat to the Roman Empire due to undermining Roman piety.

 

[Jehoshua]

Do you have a compelling way of demonstrating that (it's okay if you don't, I would drop the subject without it reflecting poorly on you).

That would depend upon if you were inclined to search through the various studies/books/archaeological evidence on the roman empire in regards to early christianity. Or alternatively if you posessed a means of going backwards in time.

Generally though I am simply saying in a simple manner what is held to be the case in regards to this area.

 

[Linkman226]

I'd like to point out that Islam was a unifying force that turned the people into one group that kind of went on a conquering spree and taxed everyone to convert. Judaism wasn't very successful after proselytization was banned and Hinduism is a snowball that kind of picked everything up in it's path. Buddhism made people thing suffering was good and accept "their lot in life".

That leaves Christianity which was heavily oppressed because it was considered a serious threat to the Roman Empire due to undermining Roman piety.

Wait, what the hell? Suffering is the PROBLEM in Buddhism. We solve it through the rejection of materialist attachments. And also, what the hell? Islam was oppressed in its early days by the ruling, landed "pagan" elite. Hence the Hajj, when Muhammed fled from his persecutors to the more welcoming city of Medina.
Every religion you just posted has been oppressed at some time, that's the fact.

 

[civ_king]

Wait, what the hell? Suffering is the PROBLEM in Buddhism. We solve it through the rejection of materialist attachments. And also, what the hell? Islam was oppressed in its early days by the ruling, landed "pagan" elite. Hence the Hajj, when Muhammed fled from his persecutors to the more welcoming city of Medina.
Every religion you just posted has been oppressed at some time, that's the fact.

Ah, you must not know about the hellhole called theocratic Tibet. Buddhism was used to convince the people that they deserved to be in a bad place because they were bad in a past life.

The Brown is expansion under Muhammed, doesn't look like being oppressed to me.

 

[aelf]

It seems to me that for anything but the most mundane beliefs, people need to be predisposed to accept them in the first place, which could be due to personal conviction/experience or simple habit. That's party why Christianity usually preaches the need for the Holy Spirit to have opened the heart to accept the Word. I just want to know if the Catholics here agree with that necessity. Or do you think the basis of faith can be entirely rational?

The Brown is expansion under Muhammed, doesn't look like being oppressed to me.

Um, Muhammad wasn't well-liked in some quarters during his life. That's why he had to fight a few people, yeah?

And could someone else answer my question about abortion in order to save the mother's life?

 

[Linkman226]

Islam was oppressed for a short while at the beginning, and then a lot more at times later in history.

Oh ya, I knew that about Tibet, I just found out some weeks past. But it still doesn't contend that suffering is good. It still contends that it's bad, except that you deserve it.

 

[civ_king]

It seems to me that for anything but the most mundane beliefs, people need to be predisposed to accept them in the first place, which could be due to personal conviction/experience or simple habit. That's party why Christianity usually preaches the need for the Holy Spirit to have opened the heart to accept the Word. I just want to know if the Catholics here agree with that necessity. Or do you think the basis of faith can be entirely rational?



Um, Muhammad wasn't well-liked in some quarters during his life. That's why he had to fight a few people, yeah?

And could someone else answer my question about abortion in order to save the mother's life?

People can soften hearts too.

There are Catholic apologists who would argue that Catholicism is entirely rational.


Yes, but it's not like people were being fed to lions. From almost the beginning Islam spread by the sword (and of course taxes to get people to convert)

 

[aelf]

People can soften hearts too.

Sure. That's why the people/community matter a lot - they can either win others over or turn them away (my experience has been the latter with Christianity).

 

[Smellincoffee]

Ah, you must not know about the hellhole called theocratic Tibet. Buddhism was used to convince the people that they deserved to be in a bad place because they were bad in a past life.

The Brown is expansion under Muhammed, doesn't look like being oppressed to me.

I could just as easily show you a map of the Christian world and dismiss your claims that Christians were persecuted. Just because Muslims and Christians both overcame the hostility against them (and returned it in greater measure) doesn't mean they weren't opposed.

I think we need an "Ask a Buddhist" thread to clear up these basic misconceptions about its teachings.

 

[civ_king]

I could just as easily show you a map of the Christian world and dismiss your claims that Christians were persecuted. Just because Muslims and Christians both overcame the hostility against them (and returned it in greater measure) doesn't mean they weren't opposed.

I think we need an "Ask a Buddhist" thread to clear up these basic misconceptions about its teachings.

Do tell, how much land did Jesus conquer?


I know exactly what Buddhism is, I'm talking about how it was (ab)used by the rulers. Also since a major part of Buddhism is stop thinking about stuff it wasn't exactly the most intellectual tradition.