The Early Christian Strategy | Hacker News Reader

The Early Christian Strategy

astralcodexten.com

16 pointsfeross8 comments

Alternate hypothesis that I don't think was covered: the words in the text are COOPERATE-BOT but they don't have much to do with the actions of those who affiliate with the text.

This is absolute ahistorical nonsense. The rise of Christianity is definitely not a story of Cooperate bot.

The premise of the article feels slightly out of phase with the messy details of actual history. Certainly “Early Christians = COOPERATE-BOT” was no longer true after Constantine brought state power to bear in favor of the religion’s interests. But then again, the author doesn’t state what they consider “early”.

The article is pure hogwash but apparently Christian propagandists are downvoting anyone who speaks up for factual history.

There's a difference between clearing up factual errors and just shitting on an article.

Edit:

Adding a quote because it looked like I was replying to GP not P

> This is absolute ahistorical nonsense. The rise of Christianity is definitely not a story of Cooperate bot.

I raised a specific thing that didn't feel right based on my reading of history and even offered a potential explanation for it. That's not shitting, that's “discussing”.

The period of fastest growth of Christianity was a period of Christian violence and darkness: the Crusades, The Inquisition, Christian colonialism and imperialism, the Dark Ages.

The fastest growing religion now is Islam, which is in many ways following the earlier playbook of Christianity.

Whereas Buddhism, the real kind, not the new agey California kind that is centered on self, or the popular Asian kind that is as close to Buddhist principles as Evangelicals are to Jesus's teachings, has nearly vanished from its place of birth, India, suppressed in favor of Islam or Hinduism, whichever the rulers of India favored at the time, and is a rarity everywhere else on the planet.

If any religion is COOPERATE-BOT, it is Buddhism, the real kind.

> the leading ideology of the 21st century thus far appears to be a hyper-Christian bleeding-heart liberalism

I would love to hear the reasoning behind this claim. Perhaps it rests on a different meaning of the word “leading” than I am expecting.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com