RE: "[Stark] estimates that in 40AD there may have been 1000 Christians in the Roman Empire, but 32 million (or 53% of the population) by 350. There may have been 700 in Rome in 100AD, but 300,000 (or 66%) by 300. That is some church growth."

Not surprising at all! And the numbers escalated at an even more phenomenal rate! In 313, with the proclamation of the Edict of Toleration by a tolerant, but highly superstitious Constantine, freedom was given to ALL religions. By 381, under a totally intolerant Theodosius, anyone who did not profess a belief in "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" could be executed! Within a generation, the persecuted became the persecutors! and they exercised that status with relish! No wonder, "conversion" became so popular - and the "growth of Christianity" was so spectacular! :-)

Oh dear another White Anglo whitewash of Christian history.
Milk and honey flowed where ever Christians went, oh and we didn't kill half as many as people think we did... and oh look over there those nasty Islamite their the nasty ones.

The bit when the reviewing repeated the old chest nut of Christian bigotry "which is why science arose only in the Christian West!" made a little sick come up.
All Stark has done is continue his Christian apologetic writing repeating the lies and distortions that have been shown to be wrong over and over again. Like all good Christians Stark is ruled by his faith not facts, and it shows.

Muelenberg wrote: "Many of the supposed great scientific, literary and artistic achievements of Islam were in fact due to the dhimmies – conquered Jews and Christians – living amongst them. And most subject peoples were "free to choose" conversion – with the only other alternatives being death or enslavement."

The above is lying and Christian apologetics. The early Muslim domains discouraged conversion to Islam as Islam was regarded as a religion for Arabs, and Muslims did not pay taxes. It is only later that Islam became a missionary religion.

During the Middle Ages universities in Christian areas were open only to Christian students. Universities in Muslim areas were open to students of any faith. Of course non-Muslims could make contributions to knowledge. The same privilege was denied to non-Christians in Christian areas. The author has made Christian bigotry a virtue.

If the length of time a religion has existed is an indication of its worth than Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism are all more worthy than Christianity.

The dominance of Christianity is an accident of history. The adoption of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire by Theodosius in the fourth century gave the religion a great boost.

Richard Fletcher's "The Conversion of Europe from Paganism to Christianity: 371-1386" tells how, with the exception of Ireland, Europe was Christianised by violence. eg. Charlemagne gave pagan Gauls the choice of beheading or Christianity.

The same pattern was followed in the Americas, Oceania and Africa. Missionaries were in general supported by state violence.

Christianity has in general been spread by violence.

Be all this as it may, and much of it is arguably doubtful, the fact still remains that the whole Christian/Abrahamic thing is a myth without one iota of proof offered in support. The whole story is categorical nonsense. Nothing perennialy worthwhile can come out of a gigantic lie. The sooner all belief systems that rely upon legend and ancient suerstitions are replaced by a rational undertanding of the world around us, the sooner everyone can all get on with enjoying our individual specks of existential experience.

As secular humanism has no basis for absolutes they specialize in twisting truth. It is no surprise they also do it with history ignoring that the fact that humanist have murdered many more than all religions put together. If they faced this fact they might indeed need to examine their own fallen nature.

runner,

Perhaps you would be interested in knowing what you oppose.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism:

“According to the Council for Secular Humanism, within the United States, the term "Secular Humanism" describes a world view with the following elements and principles:

• Need to test beliefs – A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted by faith.

• Reason, evidence, scientific method – A commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence and scientific methods of inquiry in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.

• Fulfillment, growth, creativity – A primary concern with fulfillment, growth and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.

• Search for truth – A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.

• This life – A concern for this life (as opposed to an afterlife) and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.

• Ethics – A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.

• Building a better world – A conviction that with reason, an open exchange of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.

A Secular Humanist Declaration was issued in 1980 by the Council for Secular Humanism's predecessor, CODESH. It lays out ten ideals: Free inquiry as opposed to censorship and imposition of belief; separation of church and state; the ideal of freedom from religious control and from jingoistic government control; ethics based on critical intelligence rather than that deduced from religious belief; moral education; religious skepticism; reason; a belief in science and technology as the best way of understanding the world; evolution; and education as the essential method of building humane, free, and democratic societies.”

Sounds good to me.

david f

evolutionist dismally fail the first 2 tennents of dogma you mention.

The rejection of the source of truth opens you to moral relativism and every evil that flows from that dogma. This makes your 'search for truth' tennant meaningless.

One does not have to look to closely at the tennants you list to see indeed they are based upon faith and unable to be achieved by fallen mankind despite their noble appearance. They are a poor subsitute for the claims and teachings of Jesus Christ. I dare say the outright heathens are closer to truth than those who have set up a counterfeit system.

I wonder if Jesus would have approved and thought about these examples of applied Christian politics.

The deliberate extermination of the Cathar "heretics" during the Albigensian Crusade.

The Hammer of Witches - Malleus Maleficarum which provided the justification for the deliberate slaughter of countless thousands of "witches" during the European witch-burning frenzy.

Which side would Jesus have been on in the post-reformation catholic versus protestant wars in which hundreds of thousands of human beings were slaughtered, and that ruined much of Europe? Remembering that all of the slaughters were justified by the various ecclesiastical authorities.

Would Jesus have approved of the papal bulls (1455 and 1493)that authorized the brutal colonial invasion and systematic plunder of the Americas.

What would Jesus have said above the expulsion of 200,000 Jews from Spain in 1492 - and the simultaneous theft of their property. And of the periodic anti-Jewish pogroms instigated by the church authorities that were a feature of European history for many centuries. Which inevitably culminated in the nazi holocaust.

How many atomic bombs would Jesus have recommended to be used against the Japanese people?
Would Jesus recommend that any country possess or use atomic weapons in 2012?

Would Jesus have approved of the shock and awe illegal invasion of Iraq, and the simultaneous systematic erasion of Iraq too.
http://erasingiraq.com Remembering that Bill was a very enthusiastic supporter of this illegal invasion.

Christianity like Greece has contributed much to what we are today. However, like Greece, Christianity is in decline and whilst a monument to our past, probably has no part in our future.

.
Greece had a rich history before Christianity ....
.

Daffy Duck

I suspect Jesus would be no more impressed with these things you list than the millions of murdered unborn babies yearly or the millions killed by Stalin and Mao in the name of no religion. Does though prove Jesus teachings right about the heart of man. Unlike Secular Humanism dogma which after all their atrocities take on a self righteousness.

Dear runner,

I doubt that you really read the secular humanist principles. Secular humanists are for democracy. Stalin and Mao were no more secular humanists than Jesus Christ was a Christian. Jesus was a Jew, and Stalin and Mao were against democracy.

Please cite what atrocities secular humanists are guilty of. I know of none.

I find it interesting that Jesus told a parable about something that does not exist (i.e. a 'mustard tree').

Oh wait...

I think my favourite line in the article is this one:

"Sure, some massacres took place, but this in an age when such activities were commonplace. "

Well, that's all right then.

david f you ask

'Please cite what atrocities secular humanists are guilty of. I know of none.'

Abortion for a start. More unborn have been murdered than all wars put together.

It is easy to have a mantra that your religion does not believe in killing. I would imagine though given that secularist are so quick to dispose of their unborn that they would be as quick as anyone else to defend their family or country.

As I said before to try and pretend that the heart of the secular humanist is exempt from the corrupt nature is plain self righteousness that has no science to back it.

David f, you make the claim that Christianity has mostly been spread by violence. Following a line that many secular humanists are fond of, those who abide by the view you so admire, may I ask: Where is your evidence for that assertion?

Speaking of secular humanism, it matters not to me whether secular humanists have been responsible for any crimes. Secular humanism is a new philosophy and will soon be cast away, remaining but a mere memory, a flittering breeze that once passed through in the sands of time. Christianity on the other hand, has existed for two millenia and is showing no signs of slowing down across the globe.

What follows from whether Christians do bad things or good things? or whether Atheists do good things or bad things? The existence of God is not impacted by such. The truth of Christianity stands entirely on the physical resurrection of the man named Jesus.

In any case, such discussions about 'good' and 'bad' people and the numbers of each tend to make mass generalisations about people's behaviour across the board.

To continue to make such claims despite the logical absurdity of them is ridiculous, and arguably intellectually dishonest. The irony is that they continue to be made by people who preach their own strict adherence to logical thinking 24/7. Sorry, you're human, you're not a robot.

I have read all the comments to date - with great interest! I note that Bill, the author of the article, has chosen NOT to respond to any of the comments - which I find to be disappointing. The interesting common thread that runs through most of the postings is that "Christianity" as a religious power was one that had used usurpation and violence as a common means for self-aggrandisement.

A second thread is that institutional Christianity as a vital dominating force, in its present state, is probably at an end. "Church news" over the past decade has highlighted the moral decline in its "moral leadership" greatly due to the sexual abuse issues that have emerged almost on a daily basis within the media. Furthermore, all religions seem to show their inability to demonstrate a sense of compassion, peace, and tolerance that should characterise their existence and reality.

The News over Christmas 2011:

"Churches are bombed in Egypt and Nigeria";
"a hundred monks stone each other in the Church of the Nativity" - so much for ushering in the birth of the "Prince of Peace!";
"Hindu and Buddhist shrines are desecrated"....

What does all this mean in 2012!?

It may well be true that "a religious rump" of "hard-liners' will remain - and will continue to proclaim its millenial message of peace to "men of good will". However, it may well be that a new personal secular humanist ethic will emerge as the guiding conscience for future humanity. Time will tell...

I like the way Atheist trolling bigots prove the opposite of the tolerance they preach when it comes to Christian history. How dare a 6th century theologian tell you about sin and how to avoid it, gosh-darn, the gall of such men. Stay out of my life, hiss hiss

For all those that think Christianity grew by the sword, that is the most shallow analysis ive ever heard and if it was true in a broad and general sense it wouldn't still have 2billion adherents.

Christ is the standard barer of Christianity, not any political misrepresenter.

EVEN IF Christianity had mainly grown by the sword, EVEN IF that point were to be granted (It shouldn't be, as it's complete nonsense) then all it would prove would be that Christians haven't been Christian enough.

The solution to Christian evil is not less Christianity, but more.

John Dickson makes this point quite well in his 2011 Smith Lecture, titled "Would We Be Better Off Without Religion?", available from Koorong Bookstores.

Whether Stark or Muehlenberg are 100% correct in all they write is not the issue. Name one person who hasnt made an error in the past and I'll show you a liar. However, whether one wants to be totally honest with themselves or not, the facts are that we will ALL spend eternity somewhere....Heaven or Hell...theres NO grey area......NO second chances after you die and we will ALL kneel before Jesus Christ and give an account of our lives whether you want to admit it or not. So theres the facts from the.........Fact writer

Fact writer, why would anyone believe what you write to be facts?

No one has ever come back from a 'heaven' or 'hell' to let us know that what was apparently decided by some humans a few thousand years ago is true at all?

All those other humans who fervently believe in Buddha or Mohammad also 'believe' in what their ancestors told them about these religions /Gods too.

We have no way of knowing who is right, or even if ANY of them are right at all.

I don't believe in ancient, superstitious fairy tales...

Christ fulfilled over 350 Old Testament prophecies during his first coming http://www.accordingtothescriptures.org/prophecy/353prophecies.html. These prophecies were written hundreds of years before his birth. The athiests show some real "creativity" in being able to write these off so easily. It will be interesting to see how they react when the prophecies about his second advent come to pass...

runner,

Secular humanists did not invent abortion nor are secular humanists the main supporters of abortion. The practice of abortion, the termination of a pregnancy so that it does not result in birth, dates back to ancient times. Pregnancies were terminated through a number of methods, including the administration of abortifacient herbs, the use of sharpened implements, the application of abdominal pressure, and other techniques.

Abortion laws and their enforcement have fluctuated through various eras. In many western nations during the 20th century various women's rights groups, doctors, and social reformers successfully worked to have abortion bans repealed. While abortion remains legal in most of the West, this legality is regularly challenged by pro-life groups.
The first recorded evidence of induced abortion, is from the Egyptian Ebers Papyrus in 1550 BCE. A Chinese record documents the number of royal concubines who had abortions in China between the years 515 and 500 BCE.[4] According to Chinese folklore, the legendary Emperor Shennong prescribed the use of mercury to induce abortions nearly 5000 years ago.[5] Many of the methods employed in early and primitive cultures were non-surgical.

To blame abortion on secular humanists is a bit rich. You blamed secular humanists for atrocities. You made a wild and untrue charge.

However, prevention is better than cure. We have too many abortions. We could provide all girls with birth control pills and give them instructions on how to use them. That would cut down on the number of abortions. That’s possibly too sensible for you.

Trav,

I gave you a reference for the violence in converting Europe to Christianity. Christianity has a horrible record with the Inquisition, Wars of the Reformation, German churches support for Hitler etc. Yet you want more. You sound like the Marxists who ignore all the corpses made by various Marxist entities and still believe in the nonsense. With a virgin having a baby, a humanoid figure taking on other sins, life after death and other ridiculous beliefs Christianity is a compendium of nonsense.

david f

seen secular humanist are so big a champions of democracy I take it you agree it was very wrong for the will of the people to be overturned in California when they said no to gay marraige.

Dear runner,

Democracy is more than majority rule. At one time in Germany most of the people supported Hitler. That did not make Nazi Germany a democracy.

Democracy also contains the idea that the rights of a minority must be protected. When the United States was founded black people were slaves, women could not vote and the franchise was restricted to men of wealthy. Women and black people now have full civil rights, and there is universal suffrage. Homosexuality has been a crime as has interracial marriage. Now people are free to marry regardless of race, and civil rights are being extended to homosexuals.

In the Declaration of Independence Jefferson wrote of 'inalienable rights.' Human beings are entitled to these rights regardless of the wishes of a majority. If a majority of Germans had voted for genocide that would have been the will of the people. That would not have been democracy.

Davidf

You had peviously quoted a A Secular Humanist Declaration which included

''free, and democratic societies.”

It is somewhat vile to compare those who oppose 'gay marriage'with the Nazis however when your hypocrisies are exposed it is a common trait among secularist.

The fact is that fundamentalist secularist only agree to champion democracy when their dogmas are supported as is shown by the example I have used. You are actually bound by your dogmas as much as any religous group,

THe blindness you display to those who have done atrocities in the name of no god is astounding. You mob must be more righteous than the closed Brethren.

*You are actually bound by your dogmas as much as any religous group,*

Not so, Runner. In our secular world you are free to practise your
religion. Nobody forces you to marry another man, or forces you to
have an abortion or even to fornicate with the neighbour. You
have choice about your life. In a Christian world, when the Church
of Rome ran things, they used to burn people like me for not
believing.

So ours is a tolerant world, your christian history is one of
intolerance, as the evidence shows. Even today, the Xtian Taliban
are alive and well, wherever they can be.

Dear Yabby,

Burning people at the stake was not restricted to the Catholic church. Protestant Geneva under John Calvin burned Michael Servetus, a brilliant man who discoverd pulmonary circulation, at the stake for heresy. Witch burnings were in both the Catholic and Protestant areas of Europe and the Americas.

Some Protestants like to put all the intolerance and evil on the Catholic church. It continued after the Reformation in both the Catholic and Protestant areas .

Dear runner,

I did not compare those who opposed gay marriage with the Nazis. They are not Nazis. I was just making the point that democracy requires more than the will of the majority.

Yes, this is both a protestant and catholic problem, historically speaking.

These Christian evils show that the world needs more Christianity.

And of course, past misdemeanours by Christians do not discount the positive impacts Christianity has in our world today.

*And of course, past misdemeanours by Christians do not discount the positive impacts Christianity has in our world today*

Err Trav, it shows that religious extremists cannot be trusted and
as we can see with the Taliban and Christian Taliban, their
fanatical beliefs have no limits.

Best we just live as tolerant secular democracies and you can
practise your religion as others practise their golf.

And of course, past good deeds by Christians do not discount the misdemeanours they commit in our world today.