Posted: Nov 12, 2015 2:18 am
by Leucius Charinus
Cito di Pense wrote:Ooooh. A large and powerful organization was corrupt!


No. Utterly corrupt.


Who would even have suspected?!?!?



Everyone? Maybe not.


No, this is not about proving that a large and powerful organization was corrupt.


There is sufficient evidence already to establish that the church organisation of antiquity and the middle ages was utterly corrupt. It's just that the church organisation of the 21st century does not teach its students about its own depraved history. The Bishop Jack Spong thread highlighted that Spong has received 16 death threats in his career, all by Christians who thought their history could not be as bad as Spong describes.


It's about claiming that students of ancient history can figure something out.


In time they will follow the money and the political corruption and not the forged church dogma, all the way back to its original source.

And this is the result. Excuse me while I bask in the illumination. Charge me for my tan.


Flames are free for anyone who thinks they can defend the historical record of the church organisation against the charges of being utterly corrupt.


It's not that these tidbits are not interesting, but they won't convince anyone who has an argument to the contrary,


To the contrary? Anyone is free to argue that the church organisation was not an utterly corrupt industry and business during antiquity and the middle ages. But I have not seen too many explicit arguments like that made in any forum. It is usually IMPLIED. And it is not supported by the historical evidence.


... which is why such arguments are fundamentally non-scientific. Note that I'm not saying all arguments should be scientific, but some arguments do bang on for awhile.


The argument does not require science. It's simple logic. Any given historical source may be forged or corrupt. In the case of the historical literary sources preserved by the church industry since antiquity, they are more likely to be forged or corrupted, because the entire organisation was utterly corrupt (from the beginning).

These historical arguments are rarely either made or defended by the same biblical scholars who call jesus mythicism "denialism", but I believe that this argument is both valid and appropriate for the field of history and discussion.