Some thoughts about the usual motivations of Christianity and Islaam in practice

[LuisDantas]

She makes some pretty odd arguments, splitting hairs between 'persecution' and 'prosecution', pretty much arguing that 'they were asking for it' so it doesn't really count.

Prosecution is the use of the legal system on the specific people who break the laws.

Persecution is going out of one's way to pursue specific groups.

I don't think that is too difficult a distintion, personally. Christians were doubtless prosecuted under Roman (and other) laws, as were any other people (when they broke the laws). Not too many of those others made a point of building tales of persecution out of it. Christians often did. So do Muslims, to this day.

 

[Augustus]

Prosecution is the use of the legal system on the specific people who break the laws.

Persecution is going out of one's way to pursue specific groups.

Using this argument though, how is Christian 'prosecution' of heretics any different? Just like the Romans did, they perceived such things as being a threat to the fabric of society and was thus illegal. And if the whole group was heretical...

I don't think that is too difficult a distintion, personally. Christians were doubtless prosecuted under Roman (and other) laws, as were any other people (when they broke the laws). Not too many of those others made a point of building tales of persecution out of it. Christians often did. So do Muslims, to this day.

The argument is that they were persecuted, but only <5% of the time which is a trifle, and at other times they were prosecuted because their beliefs ran contrary to Roman Law, which was their fault so they can't really complain about it.

Probably most groups who have been oppressed at some time in their history have tales about it, listen to Irish folk music for example. Its just part of their cultural memory. Most are probably prone to a bit of exaggeration and a lack of historical objectivity too. It's also worth remembering that 'history' in ancient times was not really about scholarly objective analysis of the past, but a tool for explaining and bolstering things in the present.

In this case, there is the effect of survivorship and availability bias because the Christians remained to transmit their histories and maintained enough power so that their histories are well known, as with other groups who have suffered persecutions like the Jews.

Other persecuted groups from that time like the Manichaeans don't really exist any more. Others like Druze and Zoroastrians, still exist but their cultural histories are not really well known by most people. I presume they maintain a cultural memory of their oppression though, why shouldn't they?

How do you believe something like the Diocletian persecutions influences the actions of modern day Christians for example?

 

[LuisDantas]

Using this argument though, how is Christian 'prosecution' of heretics any different? Just like the Romans did, they perceived such things as being a threat to the fabric of society and was thus illegal. And if the whole group was heretical...

That is an interesting, but separate question. Not a very symetrical one, though. The symetrical question would be something akin to "How much claim of persecution did the heretics present, and how much pride did they take on it?" or even "How helpful were claims of persecution on the survival and shaping of heresies and groups accused of heresy to this day"?

The argument is that they were persecuted, but only <5% of the time which is a trifle, and at other times they were prosecuted because their beliefs ran contrary to Roman Law, which was their fault so they can't really complain about it.

That does not much resemble the argument, as a matter of fact.

(...)

Other persecuted groups from that time like the Manichaeans don't really exist any more. Others like Druze and Zoroastrians, still exist but their cultural histories are not really well known by most people. I presume they maintain a cultural memory of their oppression though, why shouldn't they?

How do you believe something like the Diocletian persecutions influences the actions of modern day Christians for example?

Not much at all. It might as well not have existed at all for all the actual difference it makes.

The legend built on that persecution, though, is very significant.

 

[Augustus]

The legend built on that persecution, though, is very significant.

Let's say the religious right in America adopted a mainstream scholarly approach to the issue and came to the conclusion that Christians were persecuted, but that there is also a lot of hagiography, fabrication and exaggeration in the narratives. Also, that persecution was by no means consistent and overwhelming, but rather existed in sporadic outbursts.

Basically, just the sort of thing that used to happen to some group or another back then.

Would this really make much of a difference?

 

[LuisDantas]

Let's say the religious right in America adopted a mainstream scholarly approach to the issue and came to the conclusion that Christians were persecuted, but that there is also a lot of hagiography, fabrication and exaggeration in the narratives. Also, that persecution was by no means consistent and overwhelming, but rather existed in sporadic outbursts.

Basically, just the sort of thing that used to happen to some group or another back then.

Would this really make much of a difference?

It all comes down to how much they would care about those findings, of course. To this day we hear about the "war on christmas" and such similar nonsense.

The myth is often indeed greater than the fact.

 

[james bond]

Nope. It's just historical facts.

Historical facts were the persecution of Christians throughout history and today. People die. Anyway, you're entitled to interpret the same facts to what suits you.

 

[james bond]

Hey, James, come back when you want to talk. I am looking forward to that moment.



Hmm. Close proximity to lots of (nominal) Catholics, later also Protestants and Kardecist Spiritists. A near-complete avoidance of actually discussing religious matters, be them external or internal. A lot of appeal for me to accept various beliefs without any questioning. Strong prejudice against atheism.

Mainly, I learned that religion is not often taken seriously, while god-beliefs and animism receive way too much attention.



Try me.


James, if you do not enjoy a certain level of conversation, maybe you should not ask for it.

I suppose Christianity is like this. It's polarizing when people learn of the truth and can't accept it. Thus this friction or discomfort causes one problem after another for Christians. If it wasn't persecution of Christians and being tortured for one's beliefs, then it's being accused of Crusades, war mongering, anti-climate change, pro-climate change, evolution proves God doesn't exist, and evil and violent God and more. Yet, it has stood the test of time and ingrained itself in the history of many countries including Brazil. Believers continue to flock to it and the religion thrives. If the Bible wasn't true, then it would not have withstood the scrutiny, onslaught and today's atheist science attacks by it detractors and non-believers. Maybe it's just because non-believers are the spiritual dead that bothers them. That's not true. Everyone is the spiritual dead until they are saved. There lies the rub. It's just like if we were in the Garden of Eden and in front of The Tree of Knowledge, then we would eat the forbidden fruit. Perfect and immortal people do not die. Maybe that's in our nature. We lack faith. Thus, we need Jesus to be saved.

ETA: I suppose it's like in manufacturing that we accept a certain level of failures post-sin. One can't release a 100% perfect perfect product by the target date, so one is able to take an acceptable level based on statistics. We find that with people, too, as in normal distribution. What do you think of this analogy?

Okay, a bit short of elaboration, but you're entitled to your worldview.

Ha ha.

Do I get the last word? You are wrong. Try getting your information from a variety of sources.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Historical facts were the persecution of Christians throughout history and today. People die. Anyway, you're entitled to interpret the same facts to what suits you.

Sure, it just didn't happen at the Colosseum. Get over it.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yes and China and dictatorships are generally oppressive, I doubt it has anything to do with Christianity in those places. China has the worst civil rights in the world and women generally get harsh treatments in the type of places you named.

An estimated hundred million Christians or more have been brutally murdered through the millennia, solely for their faith. But the OP says, "it's in our heads." Shameful, ignorant.

 

[idav]

An estimated hundred million Christians or more have been brutally murdered through the millennia, solely for their faith. But the OP says, "it's in our heads." Shameful, ignorant.

Like i was trying to say, China just generally sucks at being humanitarians. You can take it personal as a Christian but I wouldnt. You have to pick the worst country or the worst time in history to cry persecution. Christians are the majority of the world as far as religion.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

And there is nothing funny about persecution. It's bullying due to one's beliefs.

Agree. Just ask America's women, atheists, Muslims, and homosexuals.

For years, atheists had been so marginalized and demonized by the church that they couldn't teach, coach, adopt, serve on juries or expect to win an election running as atheists (the last one is still true).

Yet its the Christians there that complain loudest about being persecuted.

Candida Moss is a writer for CNN

Candida Moss? That's a person? Sounds like a personal hygiene issue.

 

[james bond]

Agree. Just ask America's women, atheists, Muslims, and homosexuals.

For years, atheists had been so marginalized and demonized by the church that they couldn't teach, coach, adopt, serve on juries or expect to win an election running as atheists (the last one is still true).

Yet its the Christians there that complain loudest about being persecuted.



Candida Moss? That's a person? Sounds like a personal hygiene issue.

If the OP said that Candida Moss wrote a book explaining the persecutions of America's women, atheists, Muslims and homosexuals can be ignored or dismissed, then would it be okay? But, that's not what she wrote. The OP is pure ignorance.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If the OP said that Candida Moss wrote a book explaining the persecutions of America's women, atheists, Muslims and homosexuals can be ignored or dismissed, then would it be okay?

Are you claiming that this book says that it's OK to ignore the persecution of Christians. I only read the four paragraph blurb in the provided Amazon link, not the book, but what I got from it that the history of the persecution of the early church is exaggerated. That is very different from saying that Christians have never been persecuted or are not in some places even today, nor that contemporary persecution of Christians is acceptable.

The OP is pure ignorance.

I didn't think so. I thought @LuisDantas offered an interesting and thought-provoking perspective.

We see this kind of persecution complex in American Christians, people that aren't persecuted at all. It may well be the result of this idea that Christians are always being picked on for their faith. As my comment about persecuting women, atheists, Muslims and homosexuals implies, it's the Christians doing the persecuting.

So from whence do these cries of Christian persecution come from? The Moss book and the OP suggest an answer. If you have another idea, feel free to share it. Perhaps you can explain how a country that is over 2/3 Christian and in which over 90% of elected officials are Christian can possibly have its Christians persecuted by the marginalized, non-Christian minorities, and why so many of them claim to be persecuted anyway.

Here's a short quiz for you

Spoiler

How To Determine If Your Religious Liberty Is Being Threatened In Just 8 Quick Questions
Adapted from How to Determine If Your Religious Liberty Is Being Threatened in Just 10 Quick Questions | HuffPost

Pick "A" or "B" for each question..

1. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not legally allowed to marry the person I love because of somebody else's religious preferences.
B) Some states refuse to enforce my own particular religious beliefs on marriage on those two guys in line down at the courthouse.

2. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am being forced to use birth control.
B) I am unable to force others to not use birth control.

3. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to teach my children the creation stories of our faith at home.
B) Public schools won't permit my faith to inject its creation myths into science classes.

4. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to pray privately.
B) I am not allowed to force others to pray the prayers of my faith publicly.

5. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) Being a member of my faith means that I can be bullied without legal recourse.
B) I am no longer allowed to use my faith to bully gay kids with impunity.

6. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to purchase, read or possess religious books or material.
B) Others are allowed to have access books, movies and websites that I do not approve of.

7. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) My religious group is not allowed equal protection under the establishment clause.
B) My religious group is not allowed to use public funds, buildings and resources to promote itself

8. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) Another religious group has been declared the official faith of my country.
B) My own religious group is not given status as the official faith of my country.

Scoring key:

If you answered "A" to any question, then perhaps your religious liberty is indeed at stake. You and your faith group have every right to now advocate for equal protection under the law.

If you answered "B" to any question, then not only is your religious liberty not at stake, but there is a strong chance that you are oppressing the religious liberties of others.