Spreading a New Philosophy - The Founding of Christianity

[Philip Coates]

"The Judaism of the Diaspora" -- continuing:

7. "The synagogues [of the Diaspora] were all - or nearly all - of the Pharisaic tradition. This means that they were relatively liberal in interpreting the Mosaic Law, for it was the object of the Pharisees to adapt the regulations to contemporary conditions...the Pharisees were tolerant of differences of belief within rather wide limits" ===> Same point as for #6: Receptivity or relative tolerance improves the prospect for planting new ideas.

8. "The Sadducees, a much smaller party, was confined largely to Judea" ===> The less receptive, less open sect was fewer in number, giving them less strength to oppose new ideas and, being in Judea, less ability to oppose them in the Diaspora.

[Philip Coates]

> Mani lived in Iran in the 3rd century, and by the late 4th century [ND]

When I said the founding period, I'm talking about the time of Paul going around the Diaspora and planting and nurturing the earliest Christian communities, not even two centuries later once those communities were thriving. The big issue for Oism is how do you get communities to even sink permanent roots and then expand from those nucleii, as those of us who have seen campus and community clubs constantly folding and dissolving have seen not happening. It's the very first steps, the very earliest Christians and the way in which they became a separate religion from Judaism that may have lessons and thus is the issue of this thread (and the exclusive focus of the Davies book I'm parsing). As I said, the later steps are complex stories in themselves.

[9thdoctor]

The big issue for Oism is how do you get communities to even sink permanent roots and then expand from those nucleii, as those of us who have seen campus and community clubs constantly folding and dissolving have seen not happening.

My point is that Christianity was imposed by force in the 4^th century. This is how it went from being in insignificant sect, maybe 5% of the population per Gibbon, to universal rule. How this can possibly become a model for Objectivism is beyond me. It is one of the great mysteries of history why Constantine first embraced it around 313, but after that we have a good understanding of what happened under his sons, later climaxing with Theodosius and the Battle of the Frigidus in 394. The thesis of Ayn Rand’s Faith and Force talk is well demonstrated here. I’m more inclined to look to Voltaire and the encyclopédistes as a model for how to bring on a renewed enlightenment.

But by all means carry on, let’s see what you come up with. I say Christianity wasn't an especially unique cult, and it was by chance that it got the opportunity to impose itself on everyone. Manichaeism isn't the only counter example I can bring up.

[Philip Coates]

There are periods in the 2000 years of mostly successful expansion on various continents where Christianity succeeded because of force (the state, the Inquisition, etc.) and periods where it succeeded by persuasion. I'm obviously going to try to draw more on the lessons of the latter. The initial, Pauline period that I'm discussing was not one where they had the state behind them. In fact, the state and the authorities (Romans, Sanhedrin, etc.) tended to -oppose- or try to squelch them. Which, of course, is why I'm trying to concentrate on any lessons from that period in this thread.

[9thdoctor]

There are periods in the 2000 years of mostly successful expansion on various continents where Christianity succeeded because of the force of the state (or the Inquisition, etc.) and periods where it succeeded by persuasion. I'm obviously going to try to draw more on the lessons of the latter.

Then you may as well look at any other emerging cult. Mormons and Scientologists are better examples, in fact, since their histories are better recorded.

[Philip Coates]

> it went from being in insignificant sect, maybe 5% of the population per Gibbon [ND]

No one is completely certain the exact numbers** only that it was expanding everywhere for two or three centuries -prior- to being mandated by force. Gibbon seems to be on the low end compared to more recent writers with, presumably, better scientific tools and more research.

None of the varying estimates below make it "insignificant", though.

Nor does the fact that it was in every corner of the Empire. And especially urban areas. So it was succeeding in a widespread population of a diverse, mutli-continent empire of all kinds of peoples and creeds and cultures with a population comparable to that of the United States -prior- to its imposition by force as an orthodoxy. Which makes it's trajectory relevant to the spread of ideas by persuasion. ===>

" Gibbon considers the number of Christians at Rome to have been not more than one-twentieth of the population about the middle of the third century, and he adopts the same proportion for the whole Empire. (This conclusion agrees with that of Friedländer, Sittengeschichte, iii. 531.)

" On the other hand, much higher proportions have been computed by more recent writers: Stäudlin, one-half; Matter, one-fifth; La Bastie, one-twelfth; while Chastel gives one-fifteenth for the West, and one-tenth for the East. See Burckhardt, Die Zeit Constantins des Grossen, edition 2, p. 137. H. Richter (whose judgment in such a matter deserves particular consideration) reckons the Christians at one-ninth of the total population (Weströmisches Reich, 85, 86). But we have not sufficient data to fix such accurate ratios; we may say that from Decius to Constantine the proportion probably varied from about one-twentieth to one-ninth. " [http://oll.libertyfu...html&Itemid=27]

** Gallup door-to-door and telecommunications polling was not at all widespread :-)

[Philip Coates]

"The Judaism of the Diaspora" -- continuing:

9. "The Pharisees believed in resurrection and immortality whereas the Sadducees, correctly holding that no such doctrine is contained in the Law of Moses, were opposed to the belief...No picture is more mistaken than that of a synagogue congregation narrowly holding to stereotyped views." ---> It's fortunate that a new religion which included the ideas of resurrection and immortality (and other quasi-heretical innovations) had chosen places in which to make inroads where these ideas were not staunchly, universally resisted.

10. "The Jews of this period as of all others enjoyed disputation and there was never any lack of debate. It was only when extremes were reached as they were (from the Judaic standpoint) in the preaching of Paul, that new ideas were met with hostility. Between the rabbis there was always difference of opinion, sometimes quite sharp, as may easily be discovered in the Talmud." ---> So the door is often open to a degree, as long as you can portray your ideas as faithful to the basic current of Judaism (as Paul did, claiming to be a faithful or observant Jew). Note also how Paul tried to ingratiate himself by bringing monetary contributions to the orthodox authorities in Jerusalem from his missions around the Mediterranean.

11-12. "We must be careful, moreover, to avaoid any assumption that all Jews were pious or even that all were attached to the synagogue. [Attachments to] Dionysiac festivals...Serapis..Divine Caesar...Pan...Akiba...[Jewish theologican Philo revering] Plato as much as..Moses...adopted the pagan veneration of the stars" . // "We are not to imagine then that the Diaspora was without variety." ----> Same observation on openness, lack of rigidity, flux of beliefs as regarding point #10.

13. "Nevertheless, fidelity to Judaic faith and practice was strongly marked throughout the Diaspora and made a deep impression on the Hellenistic mind." --> Those who are strongly committed to their values were attractive to outsiders and so any new set of ideas which could be grafted onto or associated with or 'parasitical' upon Judaism might likewise be attractive.

[Philip Coates]

14. "Many Gentiles who were unwilling to become proselytes, partly because of the requirements of circumcision, partly because they did not wish to join the Jewish nation...were constant in their attendance at the synagogues and were called 'God-fearers'....[There was] tremendous attractiveness of Judaism to Gentiles who had lost faith in the gods they had been serving."

===> When you are hungry for a new set of ideas, when you are intellectually or spiritually or ethically 'homeless', that is a good time to make conversions or at least to get a hearing.

15. "It was these "God-fearers who were so easily converted by Paul. His message was exactly suited to their needs..Jewish monotheism without Jewish nationalism...Judaic morality without the Jewish dietary laws...the covenant..and Scriptures, without the hated rite of circumcision...[Plus, they were prepared for] belief in Jesus..by their pagan experience "

===> It is more fruitful to approach those who are already partly prepared for, partly sympathetic to you or your ideas than to try to convert those whose attitudes and values and background are deeply opposed or uncomprehending.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Okay, whew: That's my list of points and general implications (after the arrow) for the spread of ideas [the author didn't break it down into fifteen numbered points, or offer the general implications; this is my analysis and extrapolation].

The next step is to apply it further.

To see how (or if) we can apply all this stuff from two thousand years ago to a very different world today

[i've got much more to say on this next step. But I'm going to stop and take a breath first.]

[Philip Coates]

Hint about where I'm going (with those fifteen points as a jumping off place):

--Much of what was done in terms of marketing new or radical ideologies in those crucial two or three centuries has implications for today, even for secular and rational ideas: Objectivism, libertarianism, etc.

--Many of the lessons and approaches have not been learned or well-applied by the Objectivists of the last half century.

--Many of them can -still- be applied. With potentially large impact.

[Jonathan]

Hint about where I'm going (with those fifteen points as a jumping off place):

--Much of what was done in terms of marketing new or radical ideologies in those crucial two or three centuries has implications for today, even for secular and rational ideas.

--Many of the lessons and approaches have not been learned or well-applied by the Oists of the last half century.

--Many of them can -still- be applied. With potentially large impact.

Are you saying that you think that the successful new or radical ideologies of the past were spread primarily through schoolmarming, and that Objectivism needs more people like you?

J

[Xray]

Since the fundamental premise every religion is based on does not belong to reality and knowledge, how then can religion provide fundamental views on reality and knowledge?

Umm Angela - you may want to modify the "every religion" in your post. For example:

What Pantheism believes

At the heart of pantheism is reverence of the universe as the ultimate focus of reverence, and for the natural earth as sacred ...

Since reverence is a personal feeling, and to hold something as sacred is a personal belief, imo this does not belong to the realm of the objective. But reality focuses on the objectve. This is what mean when I say that the fundamental premise of every religon does not belong to the realm of reality, of fact and knowledge. It belongs to the realm of belief.

But as long as the belief is not presented as fact, there is no problem.

If I were religious, I'd probably lean toward some form of pantheism as well. Or panentheism.

On the other hand, if the divine is equated with all nature, applying Occam' razor would suggest to drop the divine as redundant.

Clasic case of an Occam's razor answer is what Laplace replied to Napoleon:

http://www.mathpages...70/kmath270.htm

The most famous exchange between these two men occurred after Laplace had given Napoleon a copy of his great work, the Mecanique Celeste. Napoleon looked it over, and remarked that in this massive volume about the universe there was not a single mention of God, its creator. Laplace replied "Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis".

[Edited to add: I just read Phil's #11 post where he clarified what he meant by 'fundamental'. I had misinterpreted it as 'objective' - my mistake].

[Selene]

I thought he said, "Listen you little shrimp, I had no need of that hypothesis.," you damn European revisionists changed the quote again!

[Xray]

Xray, 'fundamental' just means at the root or the basis or foundation of. Important enough that a great deal depends on it. Fundamental views don't have to be valid: that's what we mean when we say something is a fundamental error.

Thanks for clarifying, Phil. I had misinterpreted "fundamental" as meaning 'objective' in that context: My mistake.

[william.scherk]

Hint about where I'm going (with those fifteen points as a jumping off place):

--Much of what was done in terms of marketing new or radical ideologies in those crucial two or three centuries has implications for today, even for secular and rational ideas.

--Many of the lessons and approaches have not been learned or well-applied by the Oists of the last half century.

--Many of them can -still- be applied. With potentially large impact.

Are you saying that you think that the successful new or radical ideologies of the past were spread primarily through schoolmarming, and that Objectivism needs more people like you?

Jonathan, again I am shocked! shocked, I say, at your use of such highly offensive words like 'schoolmarm.' As you know, Objectivish thought depends on schoolmarming, finger-pointing, denunciations, schisms, the Silent Treatment, exclusion, demonizing, and associated baggage.

Phil is doing the best he can to take the lessons of Christianity, a religion based on Salvation and Heaven and God's Kingdom -- and apply them to his fitful, doomed plan to establish a vibrant, world-conquering philosophical movement. If it does not yet occur to him that taking the lessons of an intensely mystical bag of warring sects who killed each other over Trinity, then please let him labour along in his intellectual rut. It is meaningless and pointless, but it keeps him off the streets.

[George H. Smith]

Religion is a form of philosophy in terms of its depth and breadth: i) fundamental views on reality, knowledge, and ethics. ii) wide applicability to one's actions, behavior across the course of a lifetime and in every area.

Overthrowing an older philosophical worldview or establishing a new one is thus a major challenge due to the scope of the changes in thinking and action that must be conveyed, accepted, implemented. With limited resources, finding the most fertile ground to "plant the seeds" and for them to grow is a major early consideration.

The largest religion in terms of number of adherents (as well as in terms of worldwide acceptance) is Christianity with 2 billion followers.

"The First Christian" by Davies -- A Study of St. Paul and Christian Origins [1957], after a slow start, the book hits its stride [a hundred pages in] in this section: The Judaism of the Diaspora.

In only four pages, more than a dozen reasons why the founders of Christianity succeeded in selecting a fertile ground for their ideas are mentioned or hinted at (and many are applicable to spreading a secular philosophy):

[to be continued]

The Unitarian minister A. Powell Davies wrote a number of popular histories of Christianity. His books are still popular among freethinkers. I first read my favorite book by Davies, The Ten Commandments, while I was in high school, and I still have a copy of it around somewhere. I read The First Christian as well, but that was many years ago, and I don't remember much about it.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

My plan was to continue with the dozen or so points about the places and institutions selected where Christianity was spread or 'planted' by Paul (perhaps ultimately history's most successful creator-salesman-promoter of a billion-strong ideology). Then to discuss how to apply the lessons to spreading Objectivism or any new set of ideas.

Is completing this of interest to anyone, or would I simply be writing notes to myself?

The topic interests me. How Christianity managed to survive and even flourish prior to the 4th Century (when Constantine made it the official state religion) is an important historical issue, one that earned Edward Gibbon many enemies when he suggested that the success of early Christianity had nothing to do with divine favoritism. Gibbon's naturalistic explanation was more critical than anything written up to that point (short of some ribald freethought literature), and even today some Christians find it offensive.

I think it may be possible to extract some lessons from the success of early Christianity, so long as the parallels are not pushed too far.

Ghs

[Philip Coates]

> the lessons [on selling] a religion based on Salvation and Heaven and God's Kingdom

Sometimes if you learn what enables people to sell snow to Eskimos, you can apply that to selling something people actually need. Principles of marketing are not invalidated because they are used to successfully sell a bad product. In fact, if they can do that they may be even more useful to sell something more valuable.

At any rate, thanks for keeping an open mind in advance.

[9thdoctor]

Sometimes if you learn what enables people to sell snow to Eskimos, you can apply that to selling something people actually need.

MSK's been doing that with Bernays and NLP. I don't think early Christianity is going to be fertile ground, but by all means dig, dig, old mole...

[john42t]

Sometimes if you learn what enables people to sell snow to Eskimos, you can apply that to selling something people actually need. Principles of marketing are not invalidated because they are used to successfully sell a bad product. In fact, if they can do that they may be even more useful to sell something more valuable.

I don't think early Christianity is snow to Eskimos.

Like Marxism, it was (modern Christianity is different) a fell-good ideology that excuses your shortcommings and shifts blame on others: The proud, the rich, the ambitious.

In other words, it's not what people don't need - it's what they need to justify their parasitism.

Objectivism (and Judaism for that matter) are somewhat the opposite of this, which is why both don't spread that much.

It's also why those are hated by the former.

[caroljane]

Sometimes if you learn what enables people to sell snow to Eskimos, you can apply that to selling something people actually need. Principles of marketing are not invalidated because they are used to successfully sell a bad product. In fact, if they can do that they may be even more useful to sell something more valuable.

I don't think early Christianity is snow to Eskimos.

Like Marxism, it was (modern Christianity is different) a fell-good ideology that excuses your shortcommings and shifts blame on others:

But the fell-good ideology never fell, not even badly. Why? As I hinted before, spellcheck is not your friend. I know you know your verb tenses. But there is only one way to look like you are a good speller, and that is to take an actual dictionary and look up all the words you want to spell until you find the right definition. It's laborious but 100%. Alternatively to use a synonym that you can spell. But this does not always work with idioms.

Also, Eskimo is archaic, the correct term is Inuit. I am sure you want to be sensitive to that. The aboriginal peoples will appreciate it.

[john42t]

As I hinted before, spellcheck is not your friend.

I don't even use one.

But there is only one way to look like you are a good speller, and that is to take an actual dictionary and look up all the words you want to spell until you find the right definition. It's laborious but 100%.

I do that, but I'm too eratic in my concentration to catch all cases where I simply hit the wrong key.

EDIT: I spell better than I speak: It's usually the IPA I have to look up from the spelling, not the other way round.

[caroljane]

As I hinted before, spellcheck is not your friend.

I don't even use one.

But there is only one way to look like you are a good speller, and that is to take an actual dictionary and look up all the words you want to spell until you find the right definition. It's laborious but 100%.

I do that, but I'm too eratic in my concentration to catch all cases where I simply hit the wrong key.

EDIT: I spell better than I speak: It's usually the IPA I have to look up from the spelling, not the other way round.

As I hinted before, spellcheck is not your friend.

I don't even use one.

But there is only one way to look like you are a good speller, and that is to take an actual dictionary and look up all the words you want to spell until you find the right definition. It's laborious but 100%.

I do that, but I'm too eratic in my concentration to catch all cases where I simply hit the wrong key.

EDIT: I spell better than I speak: It's usually the IPA I have to look up from the spelling, not the other way round.

Too erratic in your concentration..attention deficit as we say over here? Many hyperbright people suffer from it'' has this been a problem for you?

[william.scherk]

[i replace Phil's paraphrase with my actual words here]

--Many of the lessons and approaches have not been learned or well-applied by the Oists of the last half century.

Phil is doing the best he can to take the lessons of Christianity, a religion based on Salvation and Heaven and God's Kingdom -- and apply them to his fitful, doomed plan to establish a vibrant, world-conquering philosophical movement.

Sometimes if you learn what enables people to sell snow to Eskimos, you can apply that to selling something people actually need. Principles of marketing are not invalidated because they are used to successfully sell a bad product. In fact, if they can do that they may be even more useful to sell something more valuable.

Let me try a bit harder, Phil, and uncloak my point from its tart outer wrapping. I agree with George, wholeheartedly. It is possible to extract some lessons from the success of early Christianity. As with George's wise counsel not to push the parallels too far, I add a caution that you need to understand the 'natural appeal' (so-to-speak) of Christianity that was entwined with the promises of religion. To my eyes you cannot pretend that Christianity was a 'product' tout court. You cannot pretend that the essential appeal of Christianity was not the god/man Christ and his Kingdom to come.

Yes, Salvation. Yes, God's Grace. Yes, Heaven and Peace, submission, obedience, certainty, a chauvinistic collectivity especially blessed by The Lord.

Yes, a glorious, just, peaceful world under The Kingdom of Christ.

I think that to be true to your own resolutions, to your own intellectual integrity, you know that a better idea, a better investigation, a better conclusion comes from the most rigorous, rational examination of the theses put forward -- as well as exposure and examination of unacknowledged premises that form the foundation of one's efforts.

I believe it will be a mistake in your analysis not to carefully assess the intrinsic emotional/'spiritual' appeal of early Christianity. It was 'sold' as an emanation from realms supernatural, and I do not think one can separate this 'value' from its marketing.

But ...

Can one sell agnostic/atheist philosophy (O) by using the same 'marketing' as did the early Church folk?

I say yes, Phil, yes you can. Yes. But you will tend to be selling a cult.

I do think there is value in your researches, as long as you understand and incorporate the critiques given, be they cloaked in sarcasm, as with mine, or by sweet reason, as with George's.

As for selling snow to Eskimos (Inuit), this begs the question. It assumes a reality of an evanescent joke, since no one has actually or is able to sell snow to Eskimos (it is a trope, a fiction, an analogy, a figure of speech, a flattering reference to a mythical Superman Salesman).

Nowhere is snow sold to Eskimos (in fact, actual sales of snow are rare, it is not a commodity, and usually the only real snow transactions are stunts -- since snow can be manufactured in place worldwide**). But if you can find out how one can sell an atheistic philosophy using the same tools that are used to sell religion, you will be a pioneer of similar type to Nathaniel Branden of NBI. I.e., a leader of a cult in many important respects (viz Hazards, and Barbara's testimony).

I apologize for the nasty, sarcastic tone of my earlier remarks.

___________

** See this astounding link to successful snow sales and marketing.

[Brendan Hutching]

Philip: “Overthrowing an older philosophical worldview or establishing a new one is thus a major challenge due to the scope of the changes in thinking and action that must be conveyed, accepted, implemented.”

True enough, and I would have thought that a consideration of the new worldview would be the starting point, especially for a philosophy that prides itself on the fundamental importance of ideas.

I can’t give any definitive explication of Christian notions, much less whether they explain the success of Christianity, but it strikes me that there must be something in the content that had/has sufficient attraction to appeal to a wide variety of people.

The most obvious point of appeal is the person of Jesus, even though Jesus doesn’t really come across as a “personality” in the gospels. He is an enigmatic and mysterious, although recognisably human, figure, and it’s this enigmatic quality that seems to have an impact on people.

We don’t know what Jesus was “like”, whether tall, fat or thin, his favourite colour, food etc. We know Jesus through the eyes of his followers, and through his activities and teachings.

And it’s this “narrative” quality that I think makes Christianity a very accessible worldview, coupled with ethics that are “shown” rather than told.

Take the story of the Good Samaritan. Everyone knows the ending, where Jesus says something like: “Who was a neighbor to the man attacked by robbers?”

The audience doesn’t need an ethical theory to know the answer, and for the purposes of both the story and the lives of the audience, the theory is irrelevant.

This points to a second major aspect of Christianity, which is the overcoming of self-centredness. I think this desire for overcoming the self’s inherent narcissism is a strong motivator, because the narcissism induces guilt, and Christianity shows a way of resolving this guilt.

Further, since the resolution of the guilt makes the individual person more “other-centred”, it also fosters social harmony.

Contrast this with Rand’s notion of guilt, as exemplified in the character of Hank Reardon. Reardon’s guilt arises from the unjustified demands placed upon him by his relatives and other parasites. In other words, he feels bad because he is really “too nice”.

The resolution of his guilt requires him to sunder his ties with the parasites who are so demanding of his time and wealth.

So, bad feelings are induced by the needs of others, good feelings are the result of disregarding the needs of others.

It’s not hard to see where this attitude could lead when practised consistently by a group of people.

All people are fractious, including Christians, but first century Christians seemed to have got it together sufficiently to have spread far and wide, while Objectivism is still thinking about the marketing plan.

[john42t]

Too erratic in your concentration..attention deficit as we say over here? Many hyperbright people suffer from it'' has this been a problem for you?

Yes.

I don't think it's a genuine disorder though. It has its upsides and downsides, depending on your psychology and the Zeitgeist.