10 MN to 720 MN: Christian Demographics in Africa.

[brewerb]

Brewer: Why, to lead Souls to Heaven and Eternal Happiness, of course! It's those Christians who believe in Heaven, yet don't really want their Atheist/Unbelieving Friends to go there, who don't do/support Missions etc who have the explaining to do. If you love Souls, you want them to find or gain Happiness, especially Eternal Happiness. Next, because Jesus Christ told Christians to do this. But, of course, as St. Francis of Assisi says, and as St. Mother Theresa showed, sometimes just the good example of a Christian life well lived leads Souls to Christ. It certainly did in the case of Sr. Nirmala Joshi, who was born in a Hindu Brahmin Family, but later joined the Missionaries of Charity, because she was inspired by the Gospel Message, and Mother Theresa's example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirmala_Joshi

It's dumbfounding that you can ignore all of the pain and suffering this doctrine has caused thru the centuries with not one bit of credible evidence to support it.

You demonstrate the worst kind of preaching.

I hope the mods catch on and your time here is short.

[pattylt]

Why did god perform these miracles in Africa but not in China? Or India?

[Minimalist]

Why is god shitting the bed in Europe and North America?

Did god fail geography?

[Szuchow]

How about you leave others out of your superstition and get your ass busy doing real acts of goodness?

Spouting bullshit is far easier and if imagined deity approves of both activities then why bother with harder one? It's not like space nazis have much in a way of actual morals.

[1Sam15]

Brewer: Why, to lead Souls to Heaven and Eternal Happiness, of course! It's those Christians who believe in Heaven, yet don't really want their Atheist/Unbelieving Friends to go there, who don't do/support Missions etc who have the explaining to do. If you love Souls, you want them to find or gain Happiness, especially Eternal Happiness. -snip-

 

Are you a pro-lifer @Xavier?


If so, why are you taking the gift of “Happiness, especially Eternal Happiness.” from a fetus?

An abortion does send the fetus soul directly to paradise, right @Xavier

[1Sam15]

Where there is no education, there you will find witches.

Ever ask an xian how the witch gained magical abilities?

Did god give the magical ability?

Is the magical ability natural?

[SaxonX]

Heaven could happiness as living forever can only lead to misery a life with no ending is like a story with no ending .....pointless

[brewerb]

Brewer: Why, to lead Souls to Heaven and Eternal Happiness, of course! It's those Christians who believe in Heaven, yet don't really want their Atheist/Unbelieving Friends to go there, who don't do/support Missions etc who have the explaining to do. If you love Souls, you want them to find or gain Happiness, especially Eternal Happiness. -snip-

 

Are you a pro-lifer @Xavier?


If so, why are you taking the gift of “Happiness, especially Eternal Happiness.” from a fetus?

An abortion does send the fetus soul directly to paradise, right @Xavier

I'm expecting the 'original sin' reply. There is always a catch. The belief works in mysterious ways which means 'we get to make it anything we want'.

[epronovost]

I'm confident Jesus Christ rose from the dead, Astreja, and that there's solid historical evidence for it.

As a history teacher and historian I can assure that there is not a shred of historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Even the Gospels offer poor if not downright absent claims for the resurrection of Jesus. The original ending of the Gospel of Marc, generally considered the oldest one, ends with an empty tomb which could be taken as evidence of resurrection, but Jesus never showing up again, or evidence of the body being stolen by grave robbers, disciples or enemies.

As for historical records of the event, there is absolutely none. There is no mention of the life and crucifixion of Jesus Christ outside of the New Testament. He might have been mentioned by Flavius Joseph, but passages talking about him were later forgeries. It's believed that Flavius Joseph probably did mention Jesus in his work, but it's content has been lost due to said forgeries. Tacitus does mentions in passing that Christian revere a Christ who was crucified by Pontius Pilate, but this is Tacitus saying what Christians are to his audience not what necessarily is true. Note that Tacitus doesn't mention that Christians believe that Jesus died and was resurrected. Only that he died; one could make the argument that some Christian sects of the late 1st century and early 2nd century did not believe in Jesus' earthly resurrection.

[Minimalist]

"Jesus" seems to be a mid-2d century invention by one particular brand of ancient xhristard nitwits.

The name appears nowhere in Greco-Roman literature prior to c. 180 BCE when the philosopher Celsus wrote about what a bunch of shits xtians were!

Prior to that, all they ever seemed to know was Chrestus/Christos....  which are far different words in Greek.

Thanks to xhristard book-burning, we only know about Celsus because a 3d century xtian writer, Origen, thought to quote long passages of his work in a lame effort to rebut them.

I can only assume that you are totally ignorant of real history, sonny.

[brewerb]

@Xavier Why do you never address (or at the very least acknowledge) all of the atrocities committed by your fellow believers? Just because you don't want to think/talk about them does not mean they don't happen.

[epronovost]

"Jesus" seems to be a mid-2d century invention by one particular brand of ancient xhristard nitwits.

Sorry, but this is also false. Genuine Pauline letters do refer to a Christ named Jesus. We also have the Gospel of Matthew, widely attested to be late 1st century,  which refer to Christ being named Jesus. No, it seems the name of Jesus dates back to the very creation of Christianism most likely because it was the name of their leader. This idea that Christ's name being Jesus as a mid-2nd century addition has much evidence behind it.

[Paleophyte]

Wiki says: "As of 2023, there are an estimated 718 million Christians from all denominations in Africa,[13] up from about 10 million in 1900. [14]" From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Africa

How did this extraordinary demographics change, within living memory, take place so dramatically and drastically in Africa?

Well, it looks a lot less extraordinary when you take into account the fact that the population has increased by a factor of 10. You couldn't have had 718 million Christians in Africa in 1900 because you'd have needed to have counted every living soul five times over.

So let's break this down a little more rigorously. 

1900: ~140 million people with 10 million Christians = ~7% Christian
2023: ~1500 million people with 718 million Christians = ~48% Christian

That's if you accept the number of Christians at either date as being accurate. I'm unaware of any accurate count made in 1900 and it's tricky enough today. Even if we accept the numbers, that's only 41% in 123 years or a growth rate of ~0.33% per year.

The Christian explanation is that Miracles in the Name of Jesus undoubtedly must have taken place, for such an extraordinary effect must have had a proportionately extraordinary cause.

I agree wholeheartedly! Despite the fact that Jesus was born right next door it took until the last century for God to remember that Africa needed saving and then, rather than send a Messiah, you had to rely on sending missionaries. In spite of all that, Islam is in a very close second at 41% of the population. And of course you've left unspoken the fact that Christianity is waning almost everywhere else in the world. Looks like it can only gain traction where there's poor education and a lack of real hope.

This extraordinary "miracle" of cultural assimilation and eradication is entirely on brand for Christianity and proportionally nonexistent to the deity that produced it.

[Astreja]

I'm confident Jesus Christ rose from the dead, Astreja, and that there's solid historical evidence for it. I don't know whether I'll be alive or dead in 25 years, God knows. I do know that when I die, I will go to meet the Lord in Heaven.

And I am absolutely sure that you're wrong, Xavier.

I believe that if there was a real-life Jesus, he's now just a bunch of burned and disarticulated bones in a Roman mass grave somewhere near Jerusalem.  The very existence of the "empty tomb" fable is evidence that the Gospels are nonsense, and were written by people who didn't know the realities of life in the Levant under Roman occupation.

The Romans would not have handed over the body for private burial, as this was almost never done.  In the one case that I am aware of, the men who were taken down from their crosses were friends of a friend of the governor.  Jesus and his followers simply didn't have the social or political connections that would permit him the VIP treatment after death.

I also believe that your god is a myth, and so is heaven.  Your fate is identical to mine - loss of consciousness, loss of personal identity, loss of beliefs, completely irreversible and completely unavoidable.  There is literally not a prayer in the universe that can save you from this fate.

[epronovost]

You know what's even more stupid about this meme? Haiti is 97% Christian and always was a Christian dominated nation. The only difference is that this is probably a Protestant Bible and not a Catholic one.

[Minimalist]

"Jesus" seems to be a mid-2d century invention by one particular brand of ancient xhristard nitwits.

Sorry, but this is also false. Genuine Pauline letters do refer to a Christ named Jesus. We also have the Gospel of Matthew, widely attested to be late 1st century,  which refer to Christ being named Jesus. No, it seems the name of Jesus dates back to the very creation of Christianism most likely because it was the name of their leader. This idea that Christ's name being Jesus as a mid-2nd century addition has much evidence behind it.

And which "genuine" Pauline letters are you in possession of that no one else seems to have?

The earliest manuscript we have is P46 in the Chester Beatty collection.  It is dated to 175 - 225 CE, or, late 2d to early 3d centuries.  That's 100 to 150 years after this guy supposedly lived.  

Marcion, a supposed heretic, concocted the first xtian canon...according to xtians themselves.  His canon consisted of 10 of the supposed epistles of this Paul guy and 2/3 of what was eventually styled the gospel of Luke.... ( later writers added a few extra chapters to it to fluff it out a bit. )

I know what the fucking church CLAIMS, Epy.  They also CLAIM that this jesus character rose from the dead and flew up to heaven.  I suspect you don't buy that one.

So:  FACT:  Xtians claim that "Paul" lived in the early first century to some unspecified date in the first century.


FACT:  Philo of Alexandria, was a contemporary, many of his writings have been preserved, he commented extensively about Jewish affairs as he was Jewish himself, but he never heard of this Paul guy.  Philo never heard of fucking jesus, either....but that's irrelevant at the moment.

FACT:  One of the earliest xtian apologist texts in our possession is the First Apology of Justin even this bears marks of later editing.  Addressed to Emperor Antoninus Pius ( c 160 ) Justin knows all about Marcion....but he never mentions any "Paul."  Now, the way xtians tell the story Paul was an important guy, the one who brought a non-judaized version of xtianity to the West supposedly by 60-ish CE.  But 100 years later he knows Fuckall about him?  I supposed it would be possible to write a history of the Napoleonic Wars without mentioning Admiral Nelson.... but why would you?

FACT:  Marcion's "Gospel of the Lord" begins at what is Book 3, in Luke:

 In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar,
Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea,
Jesus descended [out of heaven] into Capernaum, a city in Galilee,
and was teaching [in the synagogue] on the Sabbath days;
And they were astonished at his doctrine,

Contrast that to "Luke" if you like.

FACT:  Many scholars have long considered Chapter 1 and 2 to be later add-ons.  This is largely based on the fact that those chapters contains the most egregious historical error {the alleged world wide census} as well as the geneaology which does not agree with the one by "matthew" while the first chapter is more about John the Baptist and all sorts of angels and other horseshit.

FACT:  The gist of Marcion's creed was that yahweh was a scumbag and jesus had nothing to do with him.  I can't seem to find anything consistent with that in what currently passes for "Paul."

That's enough for now.  But I don't believe a single word that these early church fuckers....or their later redactors...said.  They were selling a product and this shit was just advertising.

Do you?

[pattylt]

Min…I think you mean your date to be CE, not BCE….just to be a bit more accurate!

[Minimalist]

You are correct.  I really love ancient history and the older the better.

But that was a brain fart.

Edit:  Okay, thanks Patty.  You gave me enough time to fix it.

[jerry mcmasters]

I thought it was pretty historically solid that there was a Paul who wrote to people and wrote about events within the first century. I don't have strong opinions about it but Min is the idea here that that's all fake and was created to seem to be about a first century person and events?

[Minimalist]

Hey, man.  If you listen to these church fucks they'll tell you that everything in their fucking bible absolutely, definitely, most-assuredly happened.

It's when you start asking what the evidence is that they start to get defensive because the evidence is thin at best.


Here's the great xtian paradox, Jerry.

This guy was so important, had so many followers, and was such a threat to the established order that the Jews had to break every rule in their book to hold a trial on passover and kill him immediately.

But... at the same time... he was so unimportant that no one living in the first century paid any attention to him at all.


Let's start from there.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Hey, man.  If you listen to these church fucks they'll tell you that everything in their fucking bible absolutely, definitely, most-assuredly happened.

It's when you start asking what the evidence is that they start to get defensive because the evidence is thin at best.


Here's the great xtian paradox, Jerry.

This guy was so important, had so many followers, and was such a threat to the established order that the Jews had to break every rule in their book to hold a trial on passover and kill him immediately.

But... at the same time... he was so unimportant that no one living in the first century paid any attention to him at all.


Let's start from there.

Was Paulian text in the bible written by him? Let's start there. All the Epistles and stuff accredited to Paul, how accurate is that?

[Minimalist]

Thump, let me ask you to spend 9 minutes listening to Bart Ehrman discuss this concept of "authenticity" and "original documents."

Generally speaking, scholars.... mainly xtian scholars which is a big part of the problem, say that there are 7 "authentic" Pauline epistles and 6 which were forged in his name by later writers.  

As you watch, keep in mind that 2 Corinthians is one of the so-called 7 authentic letters.  By the time Ehrman is finished you should be wondering what the hell "authentic" really means.




There are actual historical problems with some of what Ehrman is saying - note at one point how he tells us that our sources for this crap are the new testament which is like saying that Winnie the Pooh is real is you just read Winnie the Pooh but let's pass on that for a while and just stick to your question.

[jerry mcmasters]

Hey, man.  If you listen to these church fucks they'll tell you that everything in their fucking bible absolutely, definitely, most-assuredly happened.

It's when you start asking what the evidence is that they start to get defensive because the evidence is thin at best.


Here's the great xtian paradox, Jerry.

This guy was so important, had so many followers, and was such a threat to the established order that the Jews had to break every rule in their book to hold a trial on passover and kill him immediately.

But... at the same time... he was so unimportant that no one living in the first century paid any attention to him at all.


Let's start from there.

I just want to be clear on your position before going on too far.  Your belief is there was not a first century Paul and the Pauline letters were not written in the first century.  Correct?  What comes to mind then is what is the alternative for the existence of letters that, content wise, describe people and events of the first century?  If there is no reasonable other alternative that works better, my default alternative is that though what we actually have in reality are letters that date from the second century (or later), the originals are simply lost and what we have now are copies that, while imperfect, are more or less from a real first century Paul.  You make a good case for why this alternative is unlikely, that's fine, but I want to be clear about your alternative.

Is your belief that in the second century (or later) the letters were written by individuals purposely seeking to deceive readers about people and events of the first century (specifically the origins of the church)?  I'm not saying that's outrageous, because some of the letters seem to certainly be like this.  But your belief is the whole of the "Paul" literature is a like that, correct?  Or am I not describing what you believe is the real alternative at all, if so please do.

[Cavebear]

Why did god perform these miracles in Africa but not in China?  Or India?

Because God loves low melanin-skinned Europeans maybe?

[Minimalist]

Your belief is there was not a first century Paul and the Pauline letters were not written in the first century.  Correct?

Not quite, Jerry.  

We have no evidence that these letters existed in the first century.  Not a single scrap of papyrus or parchment.  Same goes for the so-called gospels, btw.

So what we have is what emerged after the Marcion story.  Which means that early church writers were editing it. And that is a tremendous RED FLAG.

Again, the basic premise of Marcionism was that yahweh was an evil scumbag of a god, not the Supreme God who sent "jesus."  To back up his claims he produced the first xtian canon consisting of the Gospel of the Lord and 10 epistles of Paul.  Unless Marcion was a complete asshole one has to assume that the writings he put forward support that position.  


But that is not what we see in "Paul" now.  

Paul writes in his letter to the Romans, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith".[30] Faith is the central component of Paul's doctrine of justification — meaning that Gentiles don't need to become Israelites when they convert to Christianity, because God is not just the God of one nation, but Gentile and Jew alike.

Does that sound like the Jewish "god" is some scumbag?

I have a lot of other problems with the whole Marcion story but I'm just trying to stick to actual facts here.  

The other fact is that when Justin wrote his First Apology to Antoninus Pius he never mentions anyone named "Paul."  He does know the Marcion story, though.  How is that possible?