1 edit
Originally posted by geariesWhy would non-believers struggle with that? What grade level of non-Christian are you talking with? The psychology of oppressed groups appears, in example after example, to lead to solidarity. From the ineffectiveness of the Dresden bombing, to the ultimate triumph of Christianity via Constantine's use of it to his own ends, there are obvious ways that the oppressed react to oppression. One method involves the evolution of a mythology that supports the worthiness and superiority of the group. Selling Aryan supremacy to the German people inured them to attacks. Of course this does not always work; the Christian Cathars are evidence of that, as an example of Christians oppressed by Christians.
I always find non believers struggle with the following;
The position of the followers of Christ.
They somehow managed to find the courage to carry on the mission of the Lord knowing full well the likely fate they would suffer at the hands of the Romans etc. Would not the easy option be to abandon the whole thing rather than face a similar punishme ...[text shortened]... ctly did they carry on professing the message of our Lord unless they had seen the risen Christ?
"The crusader army came under the command, both spiritually and militarily, of the papal legate Arnaud-Amaury, Abbot of Cîteaux. In the first significant engagement of the war, the town of Béziers was besieged on 22 July 1209. The Catholic inhabitants of the city were granted the freedom to leave unharmed, but many refused and opted to stay and fight alongside the Cathars.
The Cathars spent much of 1209 fending off the crusaders. The leader of the crusaders, Simon de Montfort, resorted to primitive psychological warfare. He ordered his troops to gouge out the eyes of 100 prisoners, cut off their noses and lips, then send them back to the towers led by a prisoner with one remaining eye. This only served to harden the resolve of the Cathars.[21]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharism#Massacre
It is reasonable to think that if the Cathars had won and went on to dominate, we would be believers in its divine providence today. In fact, as a precurser to Martin Luther and other Protestants, it can be said to have survived quite well.
The victory of Christianity within the Roman Empire was ambivalent as to whether the Western or Eastern variety was favored by Constantine. It was touch and go for a while.
But in any case, whichever religion comes to dominate will regard its solidarity and eventual victory as evidence of its proper place and the divine righteousness of its cause. That is just simple psychology. It even works on the football field. There will always be winners and losers, and the winners will Te-bow. 🙂
Originally posted by JS357To sum up all you said, you think they were crazy.
Why would non-believers struggle with that? What grade level of non-Christian are you talking with? The psychology of oppressed groups appears, in example after example, to lead to solidarity. From the ineffectiveness of the Dresden bombing, to the ultimate triumph of Christianity via Constantine's use of it to his own ends, there are obvious ways that the opp ...[text shortened]... the football field. There will always be winners and losers, and the winners will Te-bow. 🙂
2 edits
Originally posted by geariesThey evidently believed that Christ proved the resurrection of the dead,
No simply that they had witnessed something first hand that put enough faith into them that made everything else secondary, even the threat of horrible torture and death.
since Paul said, "If Christ has not risen, our faith is in vain and we are
of all people most miserable." I suppose he was referring to the
persecution they were enduring for spreading the good news of the
resurrection that would make them more miserable than others if it
was not really true.
Originally posted by RJHindsYou are, to your credit, applying principles of psychology.
They evidently believed that Christ proved the resurrection of the dead,
since Paul said, "If Christ has not risen, our faith is in vain and we are
of all people most miserable." I suppose he was referring to the
persecution they were enduring for spreading the good news of the
resurrection that would make them more miserable than others if it
was not really true.
Originally posted by RJHindsWell then let be explain. Psych studies show a high degree of correlation between desire that something be true, and belief that it is true; we tend to believe what we desire to be true, unless the opposite is undeniable. I could give references but for once, won't. You say it would make them miserable if it was not really true. Actually, it would only make them miserable if they came to BELIEVE it wasn't really true, but your analysis is otherwise spot-on.
They evidently believed that Christ proved the resurrection of the dead,
since Paul said, "If Christ has not risen, our faith is in vain and we are
of all people most miserable." I suppose he was referring to the
persecution they were enduring for spreading the good news of the
resurrection that would make them more miserable than others if it
was not really true.
Originally posted by RJHindsIt bothers me that someone who professes to be of at least moderate intelligence can be so stupid - your grammar for someone whose first language is English suggests a somewhat lower level of intelligence, which would tally with your powers of logic and argument too.
Does that really bother you? You sound like one of my grade school
teachers and Judge Judy. 😉
1 edit
Originally posted by wolfgang59I got A's in Math though - Even in Differential Equations.
It bothers me that someone who professes to be of at least moderate intelligence can be so stupid - your grammar for someone whose first language is English suggests a somewhat lower level of intelligence, which would tally with your powers of logic and argument too.
1 edit
Originally posted by wolfgang59This was past the basic calculus and the differntial equations in there.
Even if you did that doesn't mean much.
It probably says more about you that you think an A in basic calculus is something to brag about.
This was the next level course with a text book devoted only to
Differential Equations.
😏
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsWhat's funny for me is that by the time we got to differential equations, they were a snap because surviving that far meant you "got calculus." Later, in grad school, on the other hand, they put us all through Quantum Chemistry at the very start even tho I was only there for an analytical chemistry MS degree that would get me a better job than the one my BS degree got me. The ones who "got" QM got A's; the rest of us got B's which had the message, "study something you can make money at." That being my goal, I was happy.
This was past the basic calculus and the differntial equations in there.
This was the next level course with a text book devoted only to
Differential Equations.
😏
Originally posted by JS357Maybe your right. Differential Equations did seem easy, for I actually
What's funny for me is that by the time we got to differential equations, they were a snap because surviving that far meant you "got calculus." Later, in grad school, on the other hand, they put us all through Quantum Chemistry at the very start even tho I was only there for an analytical chemistry MS degree that would get me a better job than the one my BS de ...[text shortened]... the message, "study something you can make money at." That being my goal, I was happy.
had many tests where I got 100% of the answers right.