• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why don’t you believe in God?

Rival

se Dex me saut.
Staff member
Premium Member
No, I mean the state of which it was the official religion. You do realize stuff happened after 300 AD, right?
Do you really believe a small, often persecuted religion of the underclasses was bound to take off? That it lasted 300 years as an underground religion labelled a superstition, associated with slaves and women, is not to be waved away. There was clearly something about it that lasted for 300 years that made it gain momentum and this is clearly not state sponsorship. Christianity grew for 300 years under state suspicion. The first centuries are vital and give us thinkers like Origen, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Ignatius, Polycarp et al. These men were hardly state sponsored but it's these men we go to for doctrine. They needed zero support from Rome, so clearly the rise of Christianity is not due to Rome.

Christianity and Islam have stuck around because they have been supported by powerful states. Because of that, their god-concepts have morphed over time to be malleable to different areas and different times.
Yes, they were supported by states after the people in these states converted. What do you think made them convert exactly? How can the state support a religion to which no-one belongs in the first place?

There's nothing anti-Catholic about any of this. It's just facts. What I don't understand is why you deny it and why you think it's anti-Catholic. Saying Christianity survived due to being the official religion of powerful states starting with Rome is anti-Rome? I'm not even sure how that's supposed to make sense.
It is to suggest that Rome is responsible for Christianity, not Christianity itself.
 

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
Do you really believe a small, often persecuted religion of the underclasses was bound to take off? That it lasted 300 years as an underground religion labelled a superstition, associated with slaves and women, is not to be waved away. There was clearly something about it that lasted for 300 years that made it gain momentum and this is clearly not state sponsorship. Christianity grew for 300 years under state suspicion. The first centuries are vital and give us thinkers like Origen, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Ignatius, Polycarp et al. These men were hardly state sponsored but it's these men we go to for doctrine. They needed zero support from Rome, so clearly the rise of Christianity is not due to Rome.
We're talking about why it persists today, not why it lasted until 300 AD. If it hadn't become Rome's official religion (and subsequently the official religion of other powerful states), it wouldn't have lasted that long.
Yes, they were supported by states after the people in these states converted. What do you think made them convert exactly? How can the state support a religion to which no-one belongs in the first place?
In Islam's case it was violence. In Christianity's case, it was mostly that it was sponsored by states. Some did it out of superstition. A state can support a religion that has believers. Did you see someone say Christianity didn't have believers before it became Rome's official religion?
It is to suggest that Rome is responsible for Christianity, not Christianity itself.
You still haven't explained why that's anti-Catholic.
 

Rival

se Dex me saut.
Staff member
Premium Member
We're talking about why it persists today, not why it lasted until 300 AD. If it hadn't become Rome's official religion (and subsequently the official religion of other powerful states), it wouldn't have lasted that long.
Oh my goodness.

Whatever made Christianity last without state sponsorship for the first 300 years is what is making it last now.

Is this hard? Honestly.

In Islam's case it was violence. In Christianity's case, it was mostly that it was sponsored by states. Some did it out of superstition. A state can support a religion that has believers. Did you see someone say Christianity didn't have believers before it became Rome's official religion?
Those believers need to believe for some reason. The believers come before the state. As I've pointed out, they come 300 years before the state.

You still haven't explained why that's anti-Catholic.
Because it's suggesting Rome is the big player which controls Christianity.
 

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
Oh my goodness.

Whatever made Christianity last without state sponsorship for the first 300 years is what is making it last now.

Is this hard? Honestly.
True, this isn't hard. Whatever made Christianity last for those 300 years is not what made it last until now. A lot of religions lasted for centuries in the ancient world and then died out. They didn't last until now because they didn't have that state sponsorship. This is what I've been saying all along.
Those believers need to believe for some reason. The believers come before the state. As I've pointed out, they come 300 years before the state.
And then the state supports it and causes it to last many centuries beyond all the other many religions that died out without state sponsorship.
Because it's suggesting Rome is the big player which controls Christianity.
Rome was the big player that controlled Christianity for many centuries. It's not anti-Catholic to point that out.
 

TLK Valentine

Read the books that others would burn.
But there are no things as things, They are an abstract category of a certain kind of perception.
And there are no words as words, because all words are not words, they are either facts or opinion and all of that is a fact as a thing.

Ah,but are your perceptions of things as not things truly perceptions, or are they the perceptions of the words that are not things to signify things that no words can perceive?

Because if it is your opinion that a thing is a fact, then is it not also a fact that a word is your perception of an opinion of a thing that is not, in fact, a thing, but only a word that is not a perception of a thing that is not an opinion, but a perception of a thing that is not a word, but a fact?

Of course, that's just my opinion.
 

Rival

se Dex me saut.
Staff member
Premium Member
True, this isn't hard. Whatever made Christianity last for those 300 years is not what made it last until now. A lot of religions lasted for centuries in the ancient world and then died out. They didn't last until now because they didn't have that state sponsorship. This is what I've been saying all along.
So please tell me which of these states are sponsoring Christianity:

Syria
Egypt
Iran
China
South Korea
France
Turkey
Pakistan
Iraq
Palestine

Etc.

All countries with known Christian populations that are not state sponsored at all.

Ask any Christians why they are Christians and they won't tell you 'state sponsorship.'

Most Christians are now not living in Europe or the US they are in Africa, South America and the Middle East. Please tell me which states are sponsoring this?
 

TLK Valentine

Read the books that others would burn.
Here are a few to be going on with, all are falsifiable although over the years plenty of people have tried to falsity them, no-one has succumbed.

Futility of prayer
Childhood leukemia
The mosquito.
Unnecessary suffering
Billions of definitions of god all different.
Prevalence of evil
Omnipotence is impossible while free energy exists

To be fair, these things could just as easily point to an apathetic God as a nonexistent one.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Ah,but are your perceptions of things as not things truly perceptions, or are they the perceptions of the words that are not things to signify things that no words can perceive?

Because if it is your opinion that a thing is a fact, then is it not also a fact that a word is your perception of an opinion of a thing that is not, in fact, a thing, but only a word that is not a perception of a thing that is not an opinion, but a perception of a thing that is not a word, but a fact?

Of course, that's just my opinion.

Yeah, that is beyond me and I can't tell if I am stupid and you are wise or what ever. So I leave here.
 

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
So please tell me which of these states are sponsoring Christianity:

Syria
Egypt
Iran
China
South Korea
France
Turkey
Pakistan
Iraq
Palestine

Etc.

All countries with known Christian populations that are not state sponsored at all.

Ask any Christians why they are Christians and they won't tell you 'state sponsorship.'

Most Christians are now not living in Europe or the US they are in Africa, South America and the Middle East. Please tell me which states are sponsoring this?
You're misunderstanding. The reason anyone still believes in Christianity is that it was sponsored early on by a powerful state, and then it was subsequently adopted by many other powerful states. That doesn't mean all Christians today are living in Christian countries. It means that no one would believe in it today (or at least only a very few would) without that early support.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
You're misunderstanding. The reason anyone still believes in Christianity is that it was sponsored early on by a powerful state, and then it was subsequently adopted by many other powerful states. That doesn't mean all Christians today are living in Christian countries. It means that no one would believe in it today (or at least only a very few would) without that early support.

So your arguemnet is that it is not really about Christianity. The state could have sold anttýthing as any message would work as long as the state is behind it. Is that correct?
 

Rival

se Dex me saut.
Staff member
Premium Member
You're misunderstanding. The reason anyone still believes in Christianity is that it was sponsored early on by a powerful state, and then it was subsequently adopted by many other powerful states. That doesn't mean all Christians today are living in Christian countries. It means that no one would believe in it today (or at least only a very few would) without that early support.
You seem to be talking more about culture. People adopt what is in their culture. This is a stronger argument, but would definitely not hold in those Islamic countries, nor really in much of Europe, where Christianity as default is gone. It is certainly the historic religion of the culture and no doubt many have adopted it thus. But most Christians and others are not in this bracket.
 

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
You seem to be talking more about culture. People adopt what is in their culture. This is a stronger argument, but would definitely not hold in those Islamic countries, nor really in much of Europe, where Christianity as default is gone. It is certainly the historic religion of the culture and no doubt many have adopted it thus. But most Christians and others are not in this bracket.
I'm talking about anyone believing in Christianity. A lot of other religions died out many centuries ago. Christianity survived because it had powerful state sponsorship.
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
I'm talking about anyone believing in Christianity. A lot of other religions died out many centuries ago. Christianity survived because it had powerful state sponsorship.
Just a side question, is football support really better than religion? :)
 

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
Just a side question, is football support really better than religion? :)

football-is-life.gif
 

Rival

se Dex me saut.
Staff member
Premium Member
I'm talking about anyone believing in Christianity. A lot of other religions died out many centuries ago. Christianity survived because it had powerful state sponsorship.
You seem very sceptical that religion survives because people are actually religious and believe in a particular faith.

I'm so sick of seeing this from atheist types.

A religion can't just flourish because people happen to like it, God forbid.

:eek::expressionless::sleepy::rolleyes:
 

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
You seem very sceptical that religion survives because people are actually religious and believe in a particular faith.

I'm so sick of seeing this from atheist types.

A religion can't just flourish because people happen to like it, God forbid.

:eek::expressionless::sleepy::rolleyes:
You seem very emotionally attached to this subject. What I'm saying is that over time, theistic god concepts died out. A few remain, mostly because of state sponsorship and politics.

No, belief in a theistic god doesn't continue to be wildly popular for over a thousand years just because people happen to like it.
 
Top