The nature of human nature

[Too Few Lions]

There were probably many early Christian leaders who were assholes in person (as there are today).  But they acted with non-violence against their Roman oppressors, and then the meek (run of the mill believers) became part of the dominant religion.  They inherited the Roman Empire.  After that, they may have been real assholes, but for about 300 years they were generally meek.

Bruce there is absolutely no evidence for this. Indeed the evidence contradicts what you believe. The earliest Roman sources to mention Christians describe them as religious fanatics with a fervour for martyrdom and death, and suggest maybe they all just wanted to follow in the footsteps of their saviour!

Ramsay MacMullen is an Emeritus Professor of history at Yale University, and his scholarly interests are in the social history of Rome and the replacement of paganism by Christianity. He is a world expert on religion in the Roman Empire and he described these 'meek' early Christians with,

'If we stop here a moment, however, to assess the various familiar ways, so summarily recalled, in which Christianity differed from the general context of opinion around it, the one point of difference that seems most salient was the antagonism inherent in it – antagonism of God toward all other supernatural powers, of God toward every man or woman who refused allegiance, and of those who granted their allegiance toward all the remaining stubborn unbelievers. It was not the church's liturgy, nor morals, nor monotheism, nor internal organization that seemed to non-Christians much different from other people's or at all blameworthy. At least, there is no evidence for anything of that sort.'

Intolerance is arguably the one thing that defined early Christianity, and the only way that it differed from other Roman religions. For me intolerance does not equal meek on any level.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Hi Bruce,
Ok, we've established that Gandhi was by no means meek. That's progress.  Now you claim that it was by virtue of Gandhi's acts (although he certainly didn't act alone) that the meek inherited India (and Pakistan? and Bangladesh?). This is a bold claim and certainly seems to be contradicted by all the available evidence. I would be truly grateful if you could provide us with the sources (links to them would be useful too) for this claim. Do you mean to say that the Dalit's have inherited India?

No, what I mean to say is that the Indians have inherited India instead of the British. Your homeland no longer owns India. Indians own India, and they own it not because they took up arms against the UK, but because of the non-violent philosophy of Gandhi.  Admit it - the Brits got their asses whipped by someone who refused to whip their asses.  Turn the other cheek (heh, heh), and inherit a country.  Works for me.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

There were probably many early Christian leaders who were assholes in person (as there are today).  But they acted with non-violence against their Roman oppressors, and then the meek (run of the mill believers) became part of the dominant religion.  They inherited the Roman Empire.  After that, they may have been real assholes, but for about 300 years they were generally meek.

Bruce there is absolutely no evidence for this. Indeed the evidence contradicts what you believe. The earliest Roman sources to mention Christians describe them as religious fanatics with a fervour for martyrdom and death, and suggest maybe they all just wanted to follow in the footsteps of their saviour!

You don't even understand what you have posted.  Being religious fanatics is not the same as being violent attackers of Rome.  They boldly proclaimed their faith, and were martyred. It was the Romans who were tossing them to the lions, not vice-a-versa.  Rome and its legions were infinitely stronger than the Christian minority, but the generally non-violent minority became the majority.  The meek inherited the earth.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Bruce, you really should read some proper history on the period, rather than relying on incorrect Christian propaganda.

You are soooooo condescending.  What is your educational level?

The Roman Empire was pretty tolerant when it came to religion. Hence they had hundreds of gods and dozens of religions peacefully coexisting. The Christian emperors on the other hand were incredibly intolerant, and outlawed every other religion under penalty of death. Hence over a few hundred years the Empire became Christian. Religious intolerance is inherently and historically linked to monotheism (my god right, your god wrong). Polytheists generally don't suffer with this affliction (my god right, your god right too!)

Blah, blah, blah.  I've only got two words for you - Nero and Domitian. You conveniently left them out of your persecution history.   The point I was making is that Christians were not violently attempting to overthrow the Roman Empire for the first three centuries.  They were generally non-violent.  You even cited some examples AFTER Constantine.  I admitted that after Constantine there were a lot of Christian assholes. And so what if Tertullian had some hard feelings against Rome - he couldn't and didn't do anything about it violently.  The fact remains that Christians were, on the whole, the persecuted minority for a couple or three centuries, and did not, on the whole, react violently.  Then, they inherited "the earth."  Why do you not admit this????

EDIT: Fixed quotes - Tank

[Attila]

Hi Bruce,
Ok, we've established that Gandhi was by no means meek. That's progress.  Now you claim that it was by virtue of Gandhi's acts (although he certainly didn't act alone) that the meek inherited India (and Pakistan? and Bangladesh?). This is a bold claim and certainly seems to be contradicted by all the available evidence. I would be truly grateful if you could provide us with the sources (links to them would be useful too) for this claim. Do you mean to say that the Dalit's have inherited India?

No, what I mean to say is that the Indians have inherited India instead of the British. Your homeland no longer owns India. Indians own India, and they own it not because they took up arms against the UK, but because of the non-violent philosophy of Gandhi.  Admit it - the Brits got their asses whipped by someone who refused to whip their asses.  Turn the other cheek (heh, heh), and inherit a country.  Works for me.

Hmm. Interesting that you don't address my point. It's really quite simple you claimed that "the meek (average Indians) inherited India." Are you seriously claiming that "average Indians" are meek? Intelligent? Yes. Friendly? Yes. Funny (sense of humour)? Yes. Original? Yes. Meek? You must be joking. I guess your circle of acquaintances doesn't include many Indians.

Your homeland no longer owns India.

ROTFL! Bruce, you are so hopelessly wrong so often that it's impossible to get angry with you. It's just too funny. My homeland never owned India or even made a colony of it, for the very simple reason that I don't have one.  Once again your impoverished grasp of facts and your unwarranted assumptions get the better of you.

Admit it - the Brits got their asses whipped by someone who refused to whip their asses.

I freely admit that Britain was defeated by a variety of nationalist resistance movements   both violent and non-violent. The remainder of your comment is utter nonsense, contrary to historical facts. To put is as kindly as possible, your knowledge of that period seems rather tenuous and your conclusions, extremely simplistic. Once again I plead with you to offer documentation to support your outlandish claims. I would happily supply your with evidence to the contrary but you don't seem to be terribly interested in evidence.
ciao,
Attila

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Hmm. Interesting that you don't address my point. It's really quite simple you claimed that "the meek (average Indians) inherited India." Are you seriously claiming that "average Indians" are meek? Intelligent? Yes. Friendly? Yes. Funny (sense of humour)? Yes. Original? Yes. Meek? You must be joking. I guess your circle of acquaintances doesn't include many Indians.

Quite a few, actually. They are not nearly as violent as Americans and Britains.  After all, India never occupied the USA or England, right?

Bruce, you are so hopelessly wrong so often that it's impossible to get angry with you. It's just too funny. My homeland never owned India or even made a colony of it, for the very simple reason that I don't have one.  Once again your impoverished grasp of facts and your unwarranted assumptions get the better of you.

Where were you born?  If in the UK, I'm right. If elsewhere, I admit I'm wrong.  I thought you were born British.  If I'm mistaken, I admit it.

I freely admit that Britain was defeated by a variety of nationalist resistance movements   both violent and non-violent. The remainder of your comment is utter nonsense, contrary to historical facts. To put is as kindly as possible, your knowledge of that period seems rather tenuous and your conclusions, extremely simplistic. Once again I plead with you to offer documentation to support your outlandish claims. I would happily supply your with evidence to the contrary but you don't seem to be terribly interested in evidence.

From Wiki: "Some Indian historians, however, argue that, in fact, it was Quit India (a movement started by Gandhi – Ecurb's note) that succeeded. In support of the latter view, without doubt, the war had sapped a lot of the economic, political and military life-blood of the Empire, and the powerful Indian resistance had shattered the spirit and will of the British government. However, such historians effectively ignore the contributions of the radical movements to transfer of power in 1947. Regardless of whether it was the powerful common call for resistance among Indians that shattered the spirit and will of the British Raj to continue ruling India, or whether it was the ferment of rebellion and resentment among the British Indian Armed Forces what is beyond doubt, is that a population of millions had been motivated as it never had been before to say ultimately that independence was a non-negotiable goal, and every act of defiance and rebel only stoked this fire. In addition, the British people and the British Army seemed unwilling to back a policy of repression in India and other parts of the Empire even as their own country was recovering from war. "

A population of millions had been motivated – this was from the non-violent campaign of Gandhi, putting into practice the non-violent teachings of Jesus.  Sure, there were many other forces involved, but ultimately the non-violent aspect of the Indian resistance caused the UK to leave – without a major destructive war. The force of this movement caused the British to pack up and go home. 

[Attila]

Where were you born?

In a truly horrible place that did me service of denationalising me 1972. I was long gone by that time so it didn't really matter but I am the envy of all my friends. 

If in the UK, I'm right. If elsewhere, I admit I'm wrong.

You're wrong.

I thought you were born British.  If I'm mistaken, I admit it.

No, I wasn't but I lived there for 11 years (1988-1999).
ciao,
Attila

[Too Few Lions]

Bruce, you really should read some proper history on the period, rather than relying on incorrect Christian propaganda.

You are soooooo condescending.  What is your educational level?

The Roman Empire was pretty tolerant when it came to religion. Hence they had hundreds of gods and dozens of religions peacefully coexisting. The Christian emperors on the other hand were incredibly intolerant, and outlawed every other religion under penalty of death. Hence over a few hundred years the Empire became Christian. Religious intolerance is inherently and historically linked to monotheism (my god right, your god wrong). Polytheists generally don't suffer with this affliction (my god right, your god right too!)

Blah, blah, blah.  I've only got two words for you - Nero and Domitian. You conveniently left them out of your persecution history.   The point I was making is that Christians were not violently attempting to overthrow the Roman Empire for the first three centuries.  They were generally non-violent.  You even cited some examples AFTER Constantine.  I admitted that after Constantine there were a lot of Christian assholes. And so what if Tertullian had some hard feelings against Rome - he couldn't and didn't do anything about it violently.  The fact remains that Christians were, on the whole, the persecuted minority for a couple or three centuries, and did not, on the whole, react violently.  Then, they inherited "the earth."  Why do you not admit this????

And I have three words for you, Constantine, Theodosius and Justinian. All murderous Christian emperors, who killed many more pagans and 'heretical' Christians than all the supposed persecutions of Christians under Roman rule.

There's a reason I left Domitian and Nero out, it's because there's not much evidence that they ever persecuted Christians!

Domitian, really? There's really not much evidence he ever persecuted Christians. Here's what wikipedia says on the subject - 'Other historians, however, have maintained that there was little or no persecution of Christians during Domitian's time' and 'Evidence for persecution of Christians during the reign of Domitian is slim.'

As for Nero, I think it's debatable whether or not he ever persecuted any Christians. Even if he did, it was only a small and localised affair. To my knowledge that story appeared in the fourth century, spread by Eusebius who also made up lots of other fake Christian martyrdoms that you may well also believe. Out of all the many Roman authors that mention the Neronian fire of Rome, only Tacitus mentions the persecution of Christians, and he was writing 50 years after the event. the trouble is that part of the text first appears in the fifth century, produced by Christian propagandists. It's generally considered a later insertion into the text. The trouble is Eusebius and the Christians who followed him reinvented Christianity and created a false history of martyrs and Christianity in general. We also have the problem that these supposed persecutions of Nero aren't mentioned in Acts, or the gospels or other Christian works supposedly from the era. personally I think Nero's had a bit of a bum rap over the past 1900 years.

The Romans were pretty tolerant in the area of religion. Surely religious tolerance is represented by diversity of belief, and there was a lot of  diversity in belief in the Roman Empire, more than there is in Europe or the US today. I'll repeat what I said in myy last post, Christians were only officially persecuted for five years in the 300 years before they gained power. It wasn't 300 years of horrors for the early Christians as you've tried to claim. Even if you want to claim Domitian did persecute Christians, it's still 160 years until the next persecution under Decius in 250 CE. Most of the persecution of Christians (if not pretty much all) took place in the later 3rd and early 4th centuries, when they were far from meek, and were causing public unrest with their open intolerance towards the other religions and the classical way of life.

This isn't just my opinion, here's a quote from Professor Gwatkin, the ecclesiastical historian of Cambridge University in his Dictionary of Religion and Ethics; 'the cold historical truth is that we cannot admit more than two, or at the most three, "general persecutions."

The Christian emperors on the other hand were incredibly intolerant. They banned all other religions under penalty of death, they outlawed all philosophical discussion on religious matters, they proscribed and burned as many pagan texts as they could lay their hands on, closed down temples and libraries and outlawed all non-Christian festivals (like the Olympic games). that's why 'the meek inherited the Earth', the same way the Communists or anyone else did, by ruthlessly eliminating anyone they considered to be opposition.

There is no evidence to suggest that early Christians were 'meek', or at least any more meek than anyone else from the period. And not much evidence they were ever really persecuted that much before the mid-third century, by which point they were far from meek anyway, and that's why they were persecuted. If you choose to believe otherwise, it's your decision, but I don't think it's historically correct. Not that that should be a problem for a Christian!  

EDIT: Fixed quotes - Tank

[Attila]

The Roman Empire was pretty tolerant when it came to religion. Hence they had hundreds of gods and dozens of religions peacefully coexisting. The Christian emperors on the other hand were incredibly intolerant, and outlawed every other religion under penalty of death. Hence over a few hundred years the Empire became Christian. Religious intolerance is inherently and historically linked to monotheism (my god right, your god wrong). Polytheists generally don't suffer with this affliction (my god right, your god right too!)

Blah, blah, blah.  I've only got two words for you - Nero and Domitian.

WTF?

Domitian's foreign policy was realistic, rejecting expansionist warfare and negotiating peace at a time when Roman military tradition dictated aggressive conquest. His economic program, which was rigorously efficient, maintained the Roman currency at a standard it would never again achieve. Persecution of religious minorities, such as Jews and Christians, was non-existent.

Source: Jones, Brian W. The Emperor Domitian. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-10195-6. (1992), pp. 114–119 Am I missing something here?
As for Nero, ... he killed loads of christians but he was an equal-opportunity certifiable homicidal lunatic. He also killed his mother (Agrippina) and one of his wives (Octavia) so he did spread it about. I'm not sure about the relevance of Nero to the meek inheriting the earth. Since we seem to be drifting every wider of the point of this thread, let me summarise what I am claiming:
1. Human social interactions tend towards cooperative if conducted on an equal playing-field when each participant (individual or group) is free to defect.
2. If one player or group is deprived of the right to defect then selfish behaviour (defection) becomes the most profitable.
3. Therefore a policy of submission (cooperation under all conditions manifested by a failure to retaliate, i.e. to defect) leads to selfish/exploitative behaviour and not cooperation.
4. Therefore human beings have no need for shepherds. Left to their own they cooperate, not for any moral reasons but because such behaviour has evolved through natural selection. Cooperative drives exist in humans (like those of hunger, sex, thirst) and "revenge or defection drives"  should exist as well.
5. Defection or retaliation need not be violent. It most typically involves refusal of further interaction with the offending group or individual. If you screw me, I'll have nothing further to do with you.
6. Let me emphasise that defection/relation need not involve violence. Indeed its most typical form is  refusal to have anything more to do with the non-cooperator. If a company cheats you then they will no longer have your custom.
7. I interpret "turning the other cheek" as submission and not as passive, non-violent resistance. Just to be sure we're talking about the same sermon, here it is:

You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
   —Matthew 5:38-42, NIV

I think that the following sentence is particularly telling. "If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles." We are not talking about passive resistance here. This is clearly submission.  Submission can only encourage more instances of exploitative behaviour.
Let me bore you again with the reminder that I can be wrong about any or all of these points. Please don't hesitate to call me out but let's try to stay on topic.
ciao,
Attila

[Tank]

A lot less name calling and snarking please or I'll be locking threads - Tank

[Too Few Lions]

sorry Tank. Never heard the word 'snark' before (other than in Lewis Carroll), thanks for introducing me to it!

[Too Few Lions]

no name calling I promise, sorry for any offence caused. I just wanted to mention the Book of Revelation and leave it at that. It's not unique as an early Christian text and it's not particularly meek!
eg
'The nations raged, but thy day of retribution has come.'           Rev 11.13

'For the great day of their vengeance has come, and who will be able to stand ?'     Rev 6.15-17

And even some direct attacks on the city of Rome itself;

'The kings of the earth who committed fornication with her and lived in her luxury, will weep and mourn over her as they see the smoke of her burning'          Rev 18.9

'Then every sea captain and passenger, the sailors and others who trade by sea, stood at a distance and cried out as they saw the smoke of her conflagration, "What city is like this great city?"'            Rev 18.17-18

Plus there's similar stuff like the Sibylline Oracles.
eg;

'The people of seven hilled Rome, and riches great
Shall perish, burned by Vulcan's fiery flame,
And then shall bloody signs from heaven descend-
But yet the whole world of unnumbered men
Enraged shall kill each other, and in tumult
Shall God send famines, plagues, and thunderbolts'           S.O. 2.19-21

[Attila]

no name calling I promise, sorry for any offence caused. I just wanted to mention the Book of Revelation and leave it at that. It's not unique as an early Christian text and it's not particularly meek!
eg
'The nations raged, but thy day of retribution has come.'           Rev 11.13

'For the great day of their vengeance has come, and who will be able to stand ?'     Rev 6.15-17

And even some direct attacks on the city of Rome itself;

'The kings of the earth who committed fornication with her and lived in her luxury, will weep and mourn over her as they see the smoke of her burning'          Rev 18.9

'Then every sea captain and passenger, the sailors and others who trade by sea, stood at a distance and cried out as they saw the smoke of her conflagration, "What city is like this great city?"'            Rev 18.17-18

Plus there's similar stuff like the Sibylline Oracles.
eg;

'The people of seven hilled Rome, and riches great
Shall perish, burned by Vulcan's fiery flame,
And then shall bloody signs from heaven descend-
But yet the whole world of unnumbered men
Enraged shall kill each other, and in tumult
Shall God send famines, plagues, and thunderbolts'           S.O. 2.19-21

Hi TFL
I suppose that would be called metaphor. I have no understanding or intuitions about when something in the bible is metaphor and when you need to take it literally (seriously?). Anyway, what is your view on human nature? (the subject of this thread after all). I'm quite happy with the tit for tat view (or some variant thereof). Not to pollyanna/goodie-two-shoes  but not savage  in tooth and claw either. Any thoughts?

On the violent and megalomanic nature of Jesus, I still don't understand how Luke 19:27 is to be interpreted

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

It all seems pretty clear and unambiguous. What other reading can you get other than:
1.Consider me your king (megalomania)
2.Kill them (violence)
You seem  to know more about this stuff than I do. What message is this verse meant to send?
I don't want anyone to reign over me (that's why I'm an anarchist), do you reckon I'm in danger?
Ciao,
Attila

whoops, left out the all import negative in bold above. sorry about that.  

[Too Few Lions]

hi Attila
My point was merely that the views expressed are vitriolic, and not meek. I actually really liked your original post, and totally agree with you. Sorry for not replying to it earlier. I think I'm a bit of a tit-for-tat person in real life. I never try and screw anyone else over and always try to be considerate to others and do my best by them, but if someone screws me over I try and hit back a bit, hoping they might realise they don't get away with treating other people like crap. Having said that it depends a bit on how badly I think someone's screwed me over, and how bothered I can be to not just let it wash over me. I also tend to cut people I see as 'takers' out of my life, so I've ended up with a very large and lovely circle of friends. Like you said, I think turning the other cheek just encourages and rewards predatatory, selfish and antisocial behaviour.

I'm all for a level playing field in life, and I dislike the apparent human need for stratified layers of authority. I'd like to think that the prize should go to those exercising fair play, unfortunately i think history teaches us that the prize often goes to those exerting ruthlessness and power. I don't think everyone would be as nice as me and you would be in an egalitarian / anarchic society, and I worry people who crave power would just recreate the same systems we have now and have had historically. I think that sort of society might work well on the micro scale though, if everyone involved was like minded. Let me know if you fancy giving it a go!

And sorry for railroading the thread off the issue. I just don't accept that the early Christians were very meek, or that the Romans were very oppressive in their behaviour towards them.

[Attila]

hi Attila
My point was merely that the views expressed are vitriolic, and not meek.

I agree with you.

I actually really liked your original post, and totally agree with you. I think I'm a bit of a tit-for-tat person in real life. I never try and screw anyone else over and always try to be considerate to others and do my best by them, but if someone screws me over I try and hit back a bit, hoping they might realise they don't get away with treating other people like crap. I also tend to cut people I see as 'takers' out of my life, so I've ended up with a very large and lovely circle of friends. Like you said, I think turning the other cheek just encourages and rewards predatatory, selfish and antisocial behaviour.

I'm all for a level playing field in life, and I dislike the apparent human need for stratified layers of authority. I'd like to think that the prize should go to those exercising fair play, unfortunately i think history teaches us that the prize often goes to those exerting ruthlessness and power. I don't think everyone would be as nice as me and you would be in an egalitarian / anarchic society, and I worry people who crave power would just recreate the same systems we have now and have had historically. I think that sort of society might work well on the micro scale though, if everyone involved was like minded. Let me know if you fancy giving it a go!

Actually my view is that nations are a relatively recent phenomenon 2-3 centuries. Before that a considerably  portion of the world population lived with extremely limited  external authority imposed on them. The governing units (villages/cities/agricultural areas) where reasonably egalitarian with only occasional episodes of external authoritarian episodes. National governments and organised religion are the principal agents of authoritarianism and are mutually reinforcing. My personal experiences in the Amazonian and West African village life have been quite pleasant. People have always been mostly very nice  and, at worst, merely civil. Typically people were somewhat deferential to the elders  but that never got to the point of being hierarchical. I experiences this life for the first time when I was 21 and it completely zapped out my world view. I did not come from a religious background at all but I did think that the notion of  primitive societies was valid and that I could help these people out since I came from a technologically advanced country. It took me about a week to jettison this stupidity and realise that I was in the presence of professionals and my best move would be to keep my mouth shut and  my eyes and ears open and learn something. It's never been the same after that.
 

And sorry for railroading the thread off the issue. I just don't accept that the early Christians were very meek, or that the Romans were very oppressive in their behaviour towards them.

No worries and no railroading as far as I could see. We all  can get carried away with a subject and that's a good thing. I devoured your posts and learned a lot from you for which I thank you.
ciao,
Attila