Jason Ng: Once again I'll post the numbers for the Mormon Church from Stark's OWN book:

Quote:

“Of course once again the skeptics have ignored my post about the Mormon Church's own early growth pattern which does NOT mirror Stark's. I'll be a reasonable person and post those numbers again, which are from this site: http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_208.html.”

These numbers are taken from Stark's "The Rise of a New World Faith":

1830-62
1835-2,000 (3,126%/decade!)
1840-30,000 (1,400%)
1850-60,000 (100%)
1860-80,000 (33%)
1870-110,000 (38%)
1880-160,000 (46%)
1890-205,000 (28%)
1900-268,331 (31%)

Does this follow Stark's pattern? Obviously not. By the turn of the century the Mormon church was over a quarter million, but apparently using the "same" growth curve Stark calculated 7,530 for the Christian church. Obviously Stark's estimates are NOT supported by his own data, and the skeptics in this thread seem to be conveniently ignoring that. Why is this? Is there some unknown rule that we must only debate the points that "favor" the skeptics?

Johnny: Due to Stark’s credentials and reputation, I never bothered to study your criticism of Stark’s comments about the growth of the Mormon Church, but since you claim that skeptics are running from you on this one, I’ll give it a try.

Regarding the marked differences in the percentage of growth from 1830, 1835, 1840 and 1850, which is only 20 years, there is nothing at all unusual for a new cult or religion to have wide growth percentage fluctuations in its embryonic stage. It could hardly ever be otherwise.

After the Mormon Church’s foundational 20 year embryonic stage of growth, the percentage increases by decade through 1900 were 33%, 38%, 46%, 28% and 31%, which averages out to 35.2%. In ‘The Rise of Christianity, on page 6 Stark says “Given our starting number, if Christianity grew at the rate of forty percent per decade, there would have been 7,530 Christians in the year 100, followed by 217,795 Christians in the year 200 and by 6,299,832 Christians in the year 300. If we cut the rate of growth to 30 percent a decade, by the year 300 there would have been only 917,344 Christians – a figure far below what anyone would accept. On the other hand, if we increase the growth rate to 50 percent a decade, then there would have been 37,876,753 Christians in the year 300 – or more than twice von Hertling’s maximum estimate. Hence 40 percent per decade (or 3.42 percent per year) seems the most plausible estimate of the rate at which Christianity actually grew during the first several centuries.”

Stark said “This is a very encouraging finding since it is exceedingly close to the average growth rate of 43 percent per decade that the Mormon church has maintained over the past century (Stark 1984, 1994). Stark’s use of the word “maintained” has to refer to the time period from 1850 to 1900. He meant maintained after the Mormon Church’s foundational 20 year embryonic stage of growth, a stage of growth in which marked differences in the percentage rate of growth increases would be expected. In fact, it would be much more unusual for a new cult or religion in its first 20 years of growth not to have marked differences in percentage of growth increases.

I can’t explain the difference between 35.2% and 40%, but I am certain that Stark can explain it. I will try to contact him and ask him to explain it. At any rate, this thread is about James Holding’s ‘The Impossible Faith,’ which deals only with the first century. Holding and the book of Acts are the claimants here, and Holding needs to attempt to back up the numbers in Acts. He has said that other than the book of Acts, the only evidence regarding the size of the first century Christian Church is “non-numeric.” I have asked him for months in a number of threads to explain what his non-numeric evidence is, but he still continues to refuse to do so.

Just plain old common sense should tell anyone that the first century Christian Church was relatively quite small and of little influence.

Consider the following from my essay at www.askepticalapproach.com:

The topic of the growth of the Christian Church in the foundational first century is of great importance. If Christians cannot reasonably rule out the possibility that the first century Christian Church was relatively quite small, and the evidence that I will present indicates a relatively quite small first century Christian Church, then it is logical to conclude as I will say later the vast majority of people flatly rejected New Testament claims of miracles, bringing into question the possibility that the claims were not true.

Christian apologist James Holding has a sizeable Internet presence, many Christian fans, and an extensive Internet web site. Such being the case, it is quite appropriate for me to provide readers on both sides of the aisle with the web site address of ancient historian Richard Carrier's impressive rebuttal to Holding's admittedly flagship article titled 'The Impossible Faith," which deals only with the first century Christian Church. Holding offers various reasons why in his opinion the first century Christian Church could not have grown without divine help. His web site can be found at tektonics.org. Carrier's article can be found at http://www.columbia.edu/~rcc20/christianity. A number of his other articles can be found at the Secular Web at http://www.infidels.org/index.shtml.

After Carrier elaborates upon Holding's article in detail, he reaches the following conclusion:

"What we have seen throughout all these chapters is that Christianity was indeed repulsive or absurd or just plain false from the point of view of most people of the time, pretty much as Holding says. But Christianity never attracted most people--by honest argument and evidence, that is, since the use of force and political and social pressure was ultimately necessary to win the majority, centuries after the mission began. It is quite true that had Christianity made itself more attractive to more people, it would have been more successful than it was, more quickly, and with far less effort. But the end result was the same: over time Christianity changed to become more attractive to more people, by developing more appealing doctrines and incorporating popular festivals and superstitions. That was the only way it really could succeed--and that was the only way it actually did. Just imagine how horrified Paul would have been at the Cult of Saints, for example, which was really just polytheism in disguise, complete with revering statues and artifacts and praying to specific "deities" who had power over specific aspects of life. With that system in place, the average pagan could hardly tell the difference between his beliefs and a Christian's. And even today, only by making itself "more popular" has any branch of Christianity managed to succeed in the modern free world.
"But in the beginning, Christianity was a radical idea to most, and so was not successful by any objective standard--except within a very small cross-section of the population, primarily those disgruntled with or oppressed by the values and institutions of the dominant society. And from the point of view of those few Christianity was an attractive idea whose time had come. This minority did not need "irrefutable" evidence that Jesus rose from the grave, because they had "irrefutable" evidence that the Christian message had the backing of God: in the moral superiority of believers, their ability to work miracles, interpret scripture with surprising insight, and speak of God's will with charismatic inspiration. This is hardly "irrefutable" evidence for us--because we know a lot more than they did about human nature and the workings of the body, mind, and universe. We know that none of their "evidences" entails the conclusion, or even so much as strongly implies it. But that's us. We have the advantage of hindsight, and of scientific reason and understanding. They didn't. That doesn't make them "suckers." It just makes them wrong. Nor does it mean their beliefs were "absurd." It just means they were false.”

I believe that Richard Carrier offers a logical, secular approach that reasonably proves that the first century Christian Church could plausibly have grown by natural means rather than with divine help. In chapter 18.2 he gives ample reasons for readers to conclude that the first century Christian Church was relatively quite small, including mention of Rodney Stark"s book titled "The Rise of Christianity." Rodney Stark has a Ph.D. is sociology and is a college professor of sociology and comparative religion. He is a prolific writer and received a Pulitzer Prize nomination for "The Rise of Christianity." In the book Stark offers a statistical model which gives estimates of the size of the Christian Church at various stages of its development. He estimates that in 100 A.D., there were 7,530 Christians, or in my words only the size of several good size high schools. On pages 4-9 Stark offers corroborative support from a number of scholarly sources. In chapter 18.2, Richard Carrier offers additional scholarly sources that generally corroborate Stark's estimates.
If the first century Christian Church was plausibly relatively quite small, there is nothing miraculous about a relatively quite small first century Christian Church, and if the Church was in fact relatively quite small at that time, we can be certain that the vast majority of people flatly rejected New Testament claims of miracles, including the resurrection of Jesus, bringing into question whether or not the claims were true.

Consider the following:

1) The claims of the presence of the supposed still living eyewitnesses regarding the feeding of the 5,000

2) The same regarding the feeding of the 4,000

3) Matthew 4:24, which says "And his fame went
throughout all Syria; and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them.

4) The over 500 people who saw Jesus after he rose from the dead

5) The claim in the book of Acts that the disciples went about confirming the word with signs and wonder

6) The claim that Jesus performed many miracles that were not recorded

7) The presence of the Holy Spirit
Now readers, if those claims were actually true, there would have been a resulting pandemonium, without prior historical precedent or subsequent confirmation in future generations, that could not possibly have escaped the notice of the vast majority of people living in the Middle East and far beyond, including Pontius Pilate and a number of historians. However, there are no credible non-Biblical records that indicate that pandemonium occurred.
It is sensible for rational minded people to conclude that if claims of miracles and the resurrection of Jesus were false, the early Christian Church would not have begun to experience rapid increases in growth until after the supposed still living eyewitnesses died in the first century, and the best available evidence suggests that that is exactly what happened.

Did the majority of people living in the first century carefully check out claims of miracles? In an article at his web site, well-known Christian apologist Glenn Miller quotes Richard Carrier as saying "If the people of that time were so gullible or credulous or superstitious, then we have to be very cautious when assessing the reliability of witnesses of Jesus,” and then goes on to dispute Carrier’s claim as follows:

"Now, much of modern scholarship would already disagree with this position, as can be seen from a couple of authors:
"In antiquity miracles were not accepted without question. Graeco-Roman writers were often reluctant to ascribe miraculous events to the gods, and offered alternative explanations. Some writers were openly skeptical about miracles (e.g. Epicurus; Lucretius; Lucian). So it is a mistake to write off the miracles of Jesus as the result of the naivety and gullibility of people in the ancient world."” (GAJ, rev 2, p. 235, Stanton)

What Miller fails to realize here is that while some ancient writers, representing the educated elite--a distinct minority--were indeed skeptical of miracle claims, most uneducated, non-elite people were indeed gullible regarding claims of miracles, as the elite writers themselves stated in their books. Thus, the uneducated majority were more gullible than the educated minority. It was the uneducated majority that seems to have provided the pool of early converts, not the elite writers, who were more skeptical. Richard Carrier makes mention of this in his rebuttal of James Holding"s article.

Glenn Miller quotes A. E. Harvey as saying "the number of miracles recorded which are remotely comparable with those of Jesus is astonishingly small.” If Miller and Harvey are correct, that only serves to make my argument better than it already is. In other words, the more frequent that Christian claims of miracles were, the greater the amount of interest would have been from the general public and from historians, but as I previously showed, there are no good reasons to believe that such was the case. End of quote from my essay.

In conclusion, James Holding can criticize Richard Carrier’s rebuttal of TIF all he wants, and he can attack Rodney Stark’s widely accepted statistical model all he wants, but the simple truth is that he and the book of Acts are claimants in TIF, and Holding has yet to offer any credible external evidence whatsoever that backs up the numbers in Acts.

Has anyone thought that Stark might have been talking about mormon growth in the twentieth century? I really doubt that anyone would contradict themselves like this - it just seems more likely to me that we're misinterpreting what Stark is saying.

Jordan: Has anyone thought that Stark might have been talking about mormon growth in the twentieth century? I really doubt that anyone would contradict themselves like this - it just seems more likely to me that we're misinterpreting what Stark is saying.

Johnny: The copyright date of Stark's 'The Rise of Christinaity' is
1997, so when he said "over the past century," he meant the 1800's. You are quite right that he would not contractict himself.

There he goes again -- starting new threads after he gets beaten to a pulp in the old ones.

I'll address part 18 in the original thread when I get back from my trip, Johnny Boy. This one is officially on my ignore list, along with all the others you start just to get out of your beatings.

James Holding: There he goes again -- starting new threads after he gets beaten to a pulp in the old ones.

I'll address part 18 in the original thread when I get back from my trip, Johnny Boy. There he goes again -- starting new threads after he gets beaten to a pulp in the old ones.

I'll address part 18 in the original thread when I get back from my trip, Johnny Boy. This one is officially on my ignore list, along with all the others you start just to get out of your beatings.

Johnny: It will be quite interesting to see you try to cite credible external evidence from a consensus of modern historians and sociologists that backs up the numbers in Acts, that is, unless you want to throw the widely accepted modern historiographical and sociological methods right out of the window.

Poor Johnny!



By 350 CE, Rodney Stark estimates that 56.5 percent of the Roman Empire had converted to Christianity.

Work the numbers back to 100 A.D.

Richbee: By 350 CE, Rodney Stark estimates that 56.5 percent of the Roman Empire had converted to Christianity.

Work the numbers back to 100 A.D.

Johnny: What in the world are you talking about? What does 350 C.E. have to do with 100 C.E.? What do you get when you work the numbers back to 100 C.E.? As parts of my opening post showed, I have a good argument without even without mentioning Stark's estimates. Why didn't you comment on those parts? In addition, why don't you make any attempt to back up the numbers in Acts?

Originally posted by Johnny Skeptic

Johnny: It will be quite interesting to see you try to cite credible external evidence from a consensus of modern historians and sociologists that backs up the numbers in Acts, that is, unless you want to throw the widely accepted modern historiographical and sociological methods right out of the window.

It would be even more interesting to see you ever answer an actual argument without starting 50 new threads to avoid doing it.

Originally posted by Johnny Skeptic

Richbee: By 350 CE, Rodney Stark estimates that 56.5 percent of the Roman Empire had converted to Christianity.

Work the numbers back to 100 A.D.

Johnny: What in the world are you talking about? What does 350 C.E. have to do with 100 C.E.? What do you get when you work the numbers back to 100 C.E.? As parts of my opening post showed, I have a good argument without even without mentioning Stark's estimates. Why didn't you comment on those parts? In addition, why don't you make any attempt to back up the numbers in Acts?

Haven't you heard the Management Science Johnny?

Statistics?

Regression Anaysis?

Hmmmm, just think, once upon a time there was a beginning of the Christian Church, Acts 2.

Oh, and BTW, why only count the Men?

Shouldn't we double or triple the numbers to account for women and children? What would be the politically correct response?

If I became a Christian convert at age 13, did I count?

Richbee: Oh, and BTW, why only count the Men?

Johnny: Stark's estimates included both men and women. He used the word "Christians." If he only meant men, then in the years 350, where he estimates 33,882,008 Christians, if the estimate refers only to men, the actual number of Christians would have been about 65,000,000 Christians, and no reputable historian or sociologist would accept a figure like that.

Richbee: Shouldn't we double or triple the numbers to account for women and children? What would be the politically correct response?

Johnny: As I said before, Stark must have included women in his estimates.

Richbee: If I became a Christian convert at age 13, did I count?

Johnny: No. For the most part, 13 year olds believed what Mommy told them. To a great but lesser extent, the same goes for today. Especially in those days, 13 years olds were not in the habit of checking out all of the available pertinent information neccesary to make adequate choices.

Documented studies conducted in the United States have shown that geography plays a key role in who believes what. The same goes for sex and race.

Even without mentioning Rodney Stark's statistical model in 'The Rise of Christianity,' I can use other parts of the book to refute James Holding's TIF. Consider the following:

On page 188 of ‘The Rise of Christianity,’ Rodney Stark says “But Christianity was not about sacrifice and stigma alone. The fruits of this faith were equally substantial. As a direct result of their sacrifice and stigma, Christians were largely immune to the free-rider problem. Consequently, they were able to produce a very potent religion. The services conducted in those early house churches must have yielded an immense, shared emotional satisfaction.”

“Moreover, the fruits of this faith were not limited to the realm of the spirit. Christianity offered much to the flesh as well. It was not simply the promise of salvation that motivated Christians, but the fact they were greatly rewarded here and now for belonging. Thus, while membership was expensive, it was, in fact, a bargain. (Johnny: That's right, Mr. Holding. A bargain) That is, because the church asked much of its members, it was thereby possessed of the resources to give much. For example, because Christians were expected to aid the less fortunate, many of them received such aid, and all could feel greater security against bad times. Because they were asked to nurse the sick and dying, many of them received such nursing. Because they were asked to love others, they in turn were loved. And if Christians were required to observe a far more restrictive moral code than that observed by pagans, Christians – especially women – enjoyed a far more secure family life.”

On page 208, Stark says “Christianity did not grow because of miracle working in the marketplaces (although there may have been much of that going on) (Johnny Skeptic: Stark is definitely not making a plug for miracles here), or because Constantine said it should, or even because the martyrs gave it such credibility. It grew because Christians constituted an intense community, able to generate the ‘invincible obstinacy’ that so offended the younger Pliny but yielded immense rewards. And the primary means of its growth was through the united and motivated efforts of the growing numbers of Christian believers, who invited their friends, relatives and neighbors to share the ‘good news.’”

On page 214, Stark says “But, perhaps above all else, Christianity brought a new conception of humanity to a world saturated with capricious cruelty and the vicarious love of death.”

On page 215, Stark concludes his book with “Finally, what Christianity gave to its converts was nothing less than their humanity. In this sense virtue was its own reward.”

At his web site at tectonics.org, James Holding concludes his book review of ‘The Rise of Christianity’ as follows:

“Packed with useful information, and written at a comfortable pace, Stark's volume makes the case for Christianity as a belief system that won out because, quite frankly, it was the best deal in the Empire. To which we would add: What would you expect from the God of Creation but the system that worked better than the rest?”

Christianity was in fact perceived as the best deal in the Empire by a lot of people, but there are good reasons to believe that the kinder, gentler way that it embraced would have eventually been inevitable even without its existence.

Hammurabi was a king of Babylonia. He lived during the 18th century B.C. Part of his so-called ‘Hammurabi’s Code’ says “The law offers protection to all classes of Babylonian society; it seeks to protect the weak and the poor, including women, children, and slaves, against injustice at the hands of the rich and powerful.”

Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2002. © 1993-2001 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Solon the Athenian lawgiver offered a version of democracy centuries before Christ. Buddha offered a version of the Golden Rule centuries before Christ. Ghandi was a peaceful man and said that he loved his forgave his enemies and felt sorry for them. I could site many other examples, but these should do.

The human capacity to love is passed on genetically, and for as long as humans have been on this earth, this genetic “gift” if you will has not been selectively passed on solely to believers of the Bible. Of course, Old Testament Jews believed in ethnic selectively to a fault, and to a great extent non-Christian Jews feel the same way today.

Why did God choose Abraham and his descendants to become his chosen people? James Holding would have us believe that Old Testament Hebrews were superior people according to the standards of the time. However, Ezekiel 36:22 says “Therefore say unto the house of Israel, thus saith the lord God; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name’s sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went.”

On page 5 in ‘The Rise of Christianity,’ Rodney Stark says “And, according to Acts 21:20, by the sixth decade of the first century there were ‘many thousands of Jews’ in Jerusalem who now believed. These are not statistics. Had there been that many converts in Jerusalem, it would have been the first Christian city, since there probably were no more than twenty thousand inhabitants at this time – J. C. Russell (1958) estimated only ten thousand. As Hans Conzelmann noted, these numbers are only ‘meant to render impressive the marvel that here the Lord himself is at work.’ (1973:63) Indeed, as Robert M. Grant pointed out, ‘one must always remember that figures in antiquity …were part of rhetorical exercises’ (1977:7-8) and were not really meant to be taken literally.”

There should be no doubt whatsoever that the Bible is not inerrant. A perfect example is who first told Mary that Jesus rose from the dead. The book of John clearly says that Jesus did, but other texts claim that the angel(s) did. James Holding has said that the Bible need not be inerrant in order for his theology to work, but that he believes it is inerrant anyway. Well, what about the many thousands of believers mentioned in the book of Acts?

Did you just refute yourself AGAIN Johnny?

John Sparks: Did you just refute yourself AGAIN Johnny?

Johnny Skeptic: I am certain that if you think I refuted myself you would try to prove it. I'll let readers decide for themselves. I refer readers to my previous post.

A good deal of the arguments in my previous post are direct quotes from Rodney Stark's 'The Rise of Christianity.' Are you claiming that Stark is refuting himself? My favorite quote that I mentioned in my previous post is the following:

“Moreover, the fruits of this faith were not limited to the realm of the spirit. Christianity offered much to the flesh as well. It was not simply the promise of salvation that motivated Christians, but the fact they were greatly rewarded here and now for belonging. Thus, while membership was expensive, it was, in fact, a bargain. (Johnny: That's right, Mr. Holding. A bargain) That is, because the church asked much of its members, it was thereby possessed of the resources to give much. For example, because Christians were expected to aid the less fortunate, many of them received such aid, and all could feel greater security against bad times. Because they were asked to nurse the sick and dying, many of them received such nursing. Because they were asked to love others, they in turn were loved. And if Christians were required to observe a far more restrictive moral code than that observed by pagans, Christians – especially women – enjoyed a far more secure family life.”

The quote directly contradicts Factor #1 in James Holding's TIF. Thanks very much for giving me the opportunity to draw reader's attention to my favorite quote. My previous post was quite lengthy, so some readers will choose not to read it. This brief post can easily be read in no more than a couple of minutes.

After 20 years the Mormon Church grew to 60,000. According to Stark's numbers after 20 years the Christian Chruch grew to 1,400 (50 AD). Stark refuted himself by applying the Mormon Church's 2nd century growth rate towards the Christian church's 1st century growth rate. The Mormon Church started almost exactly 1800 years after the Christian Church, yet it grew to 268,000 by the end of the century, obviously contradicting Stark. I've said this repeatedly but it seems to be ignored yet again. Apparently Stark is somehow immune to contradiction, or so it seems.

Uh, and WHAT YEARS is Stark referring to, Johnny Boy?

Originally posted by Jason Ng:

"After 20 years the Mormon Church grew to 60,000. According to Stark's numbers after 20 years the Christian Chruch grew to 1,400 (50 AD). Stark refuted himself by applying the Mormon Church's 2nd century growth rate towards the Christian church's 1st century growth rate. The Mormon Church started almost exactly 1800 years after the Christian Church, yet it grew to 268,000 by the end of the century, obviously contradicting Stark. I've said this repeatedly but it seems to be ignored yet again. Apparently Stark is somehow immune to contradiction, or so it seems."

Johnny: I already responded to this in another thread as follows:

Originally posted by JasonNg: These numbers are taken from Stark's "The Rise of a New World Faith":

1830-62
1835-2,000 (3,126%/decade!)
1840-30,000 (1,400%)
1850-60,000 (100%)
1860-80,000 (33%)
1870-110,000 (38%)
1880-160,000 (46%)
1890-205,000 (28%)
1900-268,331 (31%)

Does this follow Stark's pattern? Obviously not. By the turn of the century the Mormon church was over a quarter million, but apparently using the "same" growth curve Stark calculated 7,530 for the Christian church. Obviously Stark's estimates are NOT supported by his own data, and the skeptics in this thread seem to be conveniently ignoring that. Why is this? Is there some unknown rule that we must only debate the points that "favor" the skeptics?

Johnny: Due to Stark’s credentials and reputation, I never bothered to study your criticism of Stark’s comments about the growth of the Mormon Church, but since you claim that skeptics are running from you on this one, I’ll give it a try.

Regarding the marked differences in the percentage of growth from 1830, 1835, 1840 and 1850, which is only 20 years, there is nothing at all unusual for a new cult or religion to have wide growth percentage fluctuations in its embryonic stage. It could hardly ever be otherwise.

After the Mormon Church’s foundational 20 year embryonic stage of growth, the percentage increases by decade through 1900 were 33%, 38%, 46%, 28% and 31%, which averages out to 35.2%. In ‘The Rise of Christianity, on page 6 Stark says “Given our starting number, if Christianity grew at the rate of forty percent per decade, there would have been 7,530 Christians in the year 100, followed by 217,795 Christians in the year 200 and by 6,299,832 Christians in the year 300. If we cut the rate of growth to 30 percent a decade, by the year 300 there would have been only 917,344 Christians – a figure far below what anyone would accept. On the other hand, if we increase the growth rate to 50 percent a decade, then there would have been 37,876,753 Christians in the year 300 – or more than twice von Hertling’s maximum estimate. Hence 40 percent per decade (or 3.42 percent per year) seems the most plausible estimate of the rate at which Christianity actually grew during the first several centuries.”

Stark said “This is a very encouraging finding since it is exceedingly close to the average growth rate of 43 percent per decade that the Mormon church has maintained over the past century (Stark 1984, 1994). Stark’s use of the word “maintained” has to refer to the time period from 1850 to 1900. He meant maintained after the Mormon Church’s foundational 20 year embryonic stage of growth, a stage of growth in which marked differences in the percentage rate of growth increases would be expected. In fact, it would be much more unusual for a new cult or religion in its first 20 years of growth not to have marked differences in percentage of growth increases.

I can’t explain the difference between 35.2% and 40%, but I am certain that Stark can explain it. I will try to contact him and ask him to explain it. At any rate, this thread is about James Holding’s ‘The Impossible Faith,’ which deals only with the first century. Holding and the book of Acts are the claimants here, and Holding needs to attempt to back up the numbers in Acts. He has said that other than the book of Acts, the only evidence regarding the size of the first century Christian Church is “non-numeric.” I have asked him for months in a number of threads to explain what his non-numeric evidence is, but he still continues to refuse to do so.

Originally posted by James Holding:

"Uh, and WHAT YEARS is Stark referring to, Johnny Boy?"

Johnny: I don't understand what you mean. Please elaborate further.

Originally posted by Jason Ng:

"Second of all, whether or not Christianity grew substantially after 100 AD does not relate to whether or not it is true. I am merely suggesting, and have been for a while, that Stark's numbers are simply unreasonable, for example when compared to the first century of the Mormon Church."

Johnny: Stark's statistical model is valid completely irregardless of his mention of the Mormon Chruch. None of the corroborative sources that he mentioned made any reference of the Mormon Church. Neither did any of the corroborative sources that Richard Carrier mentions in his rebuttal of TIF.

"Also, Christianity's spread to places as far as Rome within a generation. Even IF Christianity was just one big fraud, people in cities thousands of kilometres away wouldn't know about it, therefore even IF Stark's numbers are anywhere near true, they would likely not have been the result of a bunch of frauds."

Stark logically accounts for the growth of the early Christian Church in a secular manner as follows:

On page 188 of ‘The Rise of Christianity,’ Rodney Stark says “But Christianity was not about sacrifice and stigma alone. The fruits of this faith were equally substantial. As a direct result of their sacrifice and stigma, Christians were largely immune to the free-rider problem. Consequently, they were able to produce a very potent religion. The services conducted in those early house churches must have yielded an immense, shared emotional satisfaction.”



“Moreover, the fruits of this faith were not limited to the realm of the spirit. Christianity offered much to the flesh as well. It was not simply the promise of salvation that motivated Christians, but the fact they were greatly rewarded here and now for belonging. Thus, while membership was expensive, it was, in fact, a bargain. That is, because the church asked much of its members, it was thereby possessed of the resources to give much. For example, because Christians were expected to aid the less fortunate, many of them received such aid, and all could feel greater security against bad times. Because they were asked to nurse the sick and dying, many of them received such nursing. Because they were asked to love others, they in turn were loved. And if Christians were required to observe a far more restrictive moral code than that observed by pagans, Christians – especially women – enjoyed a far more secure family life.”



On page 208, Stark says “Christianity did not grow because of miracle working in the marketplaces (although there may have been much of that going on) (Johnny Skeptic: Stark is definitely not making a plug for miracles here), or because Constantine said it should, or even because the martyrs gave it such credibility. It grew because Christians constituted an intense community, able to generate the ‘invincible obstinacy’ that so offended the younger Pliny but yielded immense rewards. And the primary means of its growth was through the united and motivated efforts of the growing numbers of Christian believers, who invited their friends, relative, and neighbors to share the ‘good news.’”



On page 214, Stark says “But, perhaps above all else, Christianity brought a new conception of humanity to a world saturated with capricious cruelty and the vicarious love of death.”



On page 215, Stark concludes his book with “Finally, what Christianity gave to its converts was nothing less than their humanity. In this sense virtue was its own reward.”

At his web site at tectonics.org, James Holding concludes his book review of ‘The Rise of Christianity’ as follows:

“Packed with useful information, and written at a comfortable pace, Stark's volume makes the case for Christianity as a belief system that won out because, quite frankly, it was the best deal in the Empire. To which we would add: What would you expect from the God of Creation but the system that worked better than the rest?”

Christianity was in fact perceived as the best deal in town by a lot of people, but there are good reasons to believe that the kinder, gentler way that it embraced would have eventually been inevitable even without its existence.

Hammurabi was a king of Babylonia. He lived during the 18th century B.C. Part of his so-called ‘Hammurabi’s Code’ says “The law offers protection to all classes of Babylonian society; it seeks to protect the weak and the poor, including women, children, and slaves, against injustice at the hands of the rich and powerful.”

Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2002. © 1993-2001 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Solon the Athenian lawgiver offered a version of democracy centuries before Christ. Buddha offered a version of the Golden Rule centuries before Christ. Ghandi was a peaceful man and said that he loved his forgave his enemies and felt sorry for them. I could site many other examples, but these should do.