Then let's recap.
You said, "Here is the bottom line: Something happened, and it seemed important enough to start a new religious movement and, in addition, generate quite a bit of writting. Gospels, letters, commentary, doctrinal disputes, reams of it, much of which is now lost or exists only in fragments. Whatever else this corpus may or may not prove, I think it proves beyond doubt that the companions of Christ believed that He died on the cross and rose again from the dead." Post
2286.
***
I replied, "The fact that something happens and a new religion is formed is not sufficient to make me believe that the alleged events occured. By this logic, we'd have to assume Islam is true as well." Post
2297.
***
You said, "There's a marked difference between the origin of Islam and the origin of Christianity. Explaining how a crucified man came to have a following willing to die to not give up the claim that He was resurrected and thus Lord of all vs explaining how a man who used the threat of death to keep his followers in line and spread his religion at the end of a sword are two very different challenges." Post
2419. Please note that you are clearly speaking of how Islam SPREAD, not how it originated: "...a man who used the threat of death to keep his followers in line
and spread his religion at the end of a sword..." (Emphasis mine.) So please don't expect me to believe for a second that you are talking about the
origin of Islam.
***
I said, "Plenty of people have shown that they are willing to die for Islamic beliefs." Post
2424. This was in direct response to your statement that "a crucified man came to have a following willing to die to not give up the claim that He was resurrected and thus Lord of all," since you were apparently trying to use the claim that Jesus had followers willing to die for their beliefs as a way to differentiate Christianity from Islam.
***
You then said, "What does that have to do with explaining the origins of the beliefs?" Post
2429.
***
I replied, "You'll have to tell me. You are the one who said that Jesus having followers who were willing to die for their beleifs was important. I'm just pointing out that Islam has the same thing, when you specifically left out that fact and said that Islam spread through nothing but violence, presenting the impression that all Muslims were forced into it." Post
2432.
So, to be clear, at this point, we've established that Christianity got started by "something happened that was important enough to start a new religion", though you don't seem to have considered that the same thing could also be said about Islam.
***
You then said, "Islam's origins are easily explainable because Muhammad was a highly successful military leader that "converted" people at the tip of the sword." Post
2464. Once again holding to the incorrect narrative that Christianity spread through peace and love and Islam spread through bloodshed and violence.
***
I then pointed out: "That does not change the fact that there are many Muslims willing to die for their beliefs. If Christians believing their faith so deeply that they will die for that faith is evidence that Christianity is real, then Muslims believing their faith so deeply that they will die for that faith is evidence that Islam is real," and "Have you looked at Christian history? Do you think Christianity never had that kind of violence?" Post
2473. I once again point out that both Christianity and Islam have spread though both faith as well as violence.
***
You then said several things in post
2515:
You said, "Which is irrelevant to the contrast between how the beliefs took hold." However, you never actually stated how Islam started. All you did was make a claim about how it SPREAD.
You said, "Yes, Islam initially spread through the threat of violence." Again, this is about how Islam SPREAD. However you ignored the fact that Christianity spread through violence as well.
You also said, "Such episodes are exceptions rather than the general rule, at least for the first millenia. But that's not really relevant to how the beliefs originate" Trying to downplay the violence in Christian history while at the same time emphasizing it in Islamic history is incredibly biased. And once again, you have not said ANYTHING about how Islam originated, only about how it spread.
You also said, "The point is in trying to explain the origin and initial spread of the belief." Now you are trying to bring in the discussion about how the religions spread, a change from your earlier declaration that you were trying to talk about how they originated, not spread. And again, I will point out that you have said absolutely NOTHING about how Islam originated. Everything you have said about it has been to say that is spread mainly through violence. You speak of how it spread, but never how it originated.
***
Then, in post
2519, I said, "And yet I've pointed out that there is no practical difference. Both Christianity and Islam have spread due to a combination of people being genuinely convinced and also by threats of violence." And that is true. We are talking about two religions which were spread by a combination of both faith and violence.
***
Then, in post
2522, you said, "You pointed out no practical difference, you attacked a strawman." This simply is not true. First, I was not claiming there was a difference to be pointed out, I was claiming that there is no practical difference. Both Christianity and Islam spread through a combination of faith and violence. And this claim is not a strawman, it is true. I can provide a number of examples of each religion spreading through faith and each religion spreading through violence if you'd like. In fact, I pointed this out directly in my response, in post
2524.
Now you are again accusing me of using a strawman.
You claim I never engaged in the argument you presented, yet I have shown here that I have. I pointed out how your claims about the spread of each religion are misleading, since you presented Christianity as spreading through faith and happiness and Islam as spreading through swords and violence. As for your claims that you were trying to discuss the origins of the religions, I've shown how you never even bothered to address the origins of Islam, you only spoke about how it spread, and then you gave a misleading view of it by claiming it was only spread through violence.
You never even said ANYTHING about the origin of Islam. Everything you have said about Islam has been to say it has spread through nothing but violence.
And let's not forget that in post 2515, you made it clear that you were talking about explaining "the origin and
initial spread of the belief." It seems to me that you are trying to expand the discussion to include the spread because you don't want to actually say ANYTHING about the origin of Islam.
So how about you either start talking about the origin of Islam, or stop trying to complain that this talk of spread isn't what you want to talk about?
