But you said "WITHIN 300 years". And Julian the Apostate reestablished paganism as the official religion of the Roman state. Regardless of whether we're talking about 320 AD or 360 AD or 390 AD, the dominant version of Christianity still looked like the original one.
-
-
Replying to @MorlockP
I agree it certainly wasn't evolutionary. But when the Church came into power, it took full advantage. It became a religion of power and control, not humility and self-sacrifice. It became the religion ABOUT Jesus, not the religion OF Jesus.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ScottAllen
You're still arguing about a thesis other than the one that you proposed. I'm not going to let you wiggle out of this. Do you retract your original statement that "within 300 years it didn't resemble original Christianity", or do you stand by it?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MorlockP
In 312, Constantine painted crosses on his soldiers' shields and put Christianity into power. That's "within 300 years" of the start of Jesus' ministry. Council of Nicea was also "within 300 years". So I stand by it. Would it have been stronger/better if I had said 400? Yes.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ScottAllen
so because the state painted crosses on shields in 313, the CHRISTIAN RELIGION "looked nothing like that". Priests were no longer ascetics, the doctrine of "turn the other cheek" was renounced, charity was no longer spoken of as a virtue, religious official urged holy wars?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MorlockP
You know, I'm not saying everybody, or even necessarily the majority. I'm referring to those in power, those most visible. Of course there has been a monastic/esoteric/charitable tradition in Christianity throughout history.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ScottAllen
you've changed your thesis. Your started with "the dominant version of Christianity", and now you're talking about how the State reconciled its own aims with pro-forma Christianity. Anything a state says supports statism. A communist state is not a 10 person commune.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MorlockP @ScottAllen
Your original thesis: * within 300 years * dominant version of Christianity was opposite original Christianity Your actual argument: * after 300 years * state propaganda claimed that the state was Christian which (a) I agree with, (b) is entirely disjoint with your 1st claim
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MorlockP
Well, we'd have to agree on the meaning of dominant. Google says it's "most important, powerful, or influential". And those three adjectives are not always the same, and subjective at that. I was thinking "powerful", but even that could be argued.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ScottAllen @MorlockP
I'll cede that it's a very fuzzy boundary, and my initial thesis was right smack in the middle of that very fuzzy boundary. It's a much stronger claim to say: a) Starting at around 300 years later b) The most powerful (militarily/politically/statist) version of it
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
ok, I can mostly agree with that
-
-
Replying to @MorlockP
Cool. I appreciate the push to specificity, but I also don't really want to debate semantics and fuzzy boundaries when we're agreed in general principle.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ScottAllen
there's a fine line between "this guy is being an a-hole for quibbling about mere details" (bad) and "well, actually, unless we nail down what the thesis is, it's not QUIBBLING at all". anyway, productive good discussion. Cheers all around. Yay for both of us! :)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.