Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[Fervent]

Let me know when you want top continue this discussion and we can.

Not much point, since it's clear you're no skeptic just a run of the mill consensus thinker.

 

[Kylie]

Not much point, since it's clear you're no skeptic just a run of the mill consensus thinker.

Whatever it takes for you to justify not providing any actual evidence for your claims.

 

[Fervent]

Whatever it takes for you to justify not providing any actual evidence for your claims.

I made no claims, I only critiqued your fallacious "logic".

 

[Kylie]

I made no claims, I only critiqued your fallacious "logic".

You claimed that Christianity spread through peace and Islam spread only through violence.

 

[Fervent]

You claimed that Christianity spread through peace and Islam spread only through violence.

I claimed no such thing. I argued that Christianity's originating with the shameful death by crucifixion of Christ demands an explanation, especially since the closest proximal sources were willing to suffer persecution, torture, and death in order to maintain that they had witnessed the resurrected Christ. Your attributed claim is just the strawman you attacked, whether that strawman was intentional or just because you lack the comprehension skills to have understood my basic argument is an open question.

 

[Kylie]

I claimed no such thing. I argued that Christianity's originating with the shameful death by crucifixion of Christ demands an explanation, especially since the closest proximal sources were willing to suffer persecution, torture, and death in order to maintain that they had witnessed the resurrected Christ. Your attributed claim is just the strawman you attacked, whether that strawman was intentional or just because you lack the comprehension skills to have understood my basic argument is an open question.

Yeah you did.

You said, "There's a marked difference between the origin of Islam and the origin of Christianity." And then went on to say that the spread of Christianity was due to "a crucified man [who] came to have a following willing to die to not give up the claim that He was resurrected and thus Lord of all," and that the spread of Islam was due to "a man who used the threat of death to keep his followers in line and spread his religion at the end of a sword..."

Post 2419 if you want to see for yourself.

Oh, and let's not forget that line of discussion was started by BCP's statement in post 2286 that "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."

All I ever did was point out that this can be said of Christianity, and it can be said of Islam.

 

[Fervent]

Yeah you did.

You said, "There's a marked difference between the origin of Islam and the origin of Christianity." And then went on to say that the spread of Christianity was due to "a crucified man [who] came to have a following willing to die to not give up the claim that He was resurrected and thus Lord of all," and that the spread of Islam was due to "a man who used the threat of death to keep his followers in line and spread his religion at the end of a sword..."

Post 2419 if you want to see for yourself.

Oh, and let's not forget that line of discussion was started by BCP's statement in post 2286 that "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."

All I ever did was point out that this can be said of Christianity, and it can be said of Islam.

I said that, and I maintain it. But that is not "Christianity spread peacefully and Islam spread with violence" it is that the central figure in Christianity is a dead itinerant preacher, and the founder of Islam is a powerful warlord. Islam's origin is easily understood by the remporal power of its founder and the violence he was willing to use to get people to convert to his movement. So there is a marked difference between the rise of each, making your statement false.

 

[Kylie]

I said that, and I maintain it. But that is not "Christianity spread peacefully and Islam spread with violence" it is that the central figure in Christianity is a dead itinerant preacher, and the founder of Islam is a powerful warlord. Islam's origin is easily understood by the remporal power of its founder and the violence he was willing to use to get people to convert to his movement. So there is a marked difference between the rise of each, making your statement false.

Ah, so you came in, interrupted a discussion I was having with someone else, and then changed the subject away from what we had been discussing and then got mad when I pointed out how you were mistaken.

Because, despite your claims which you make even now, the spread of Christianity involved violence and bloodshed just like the spread of Islam did.

And, as I've also pointed out previously, you are talking about the SPREAD of Islam, not the ORIGIN of it. You seem determined to compare apples to oranges and hope that no one notices.

 

[Fervent]

Ah, so you came in, interrupted a discussion I was having with someone else, and then changed the subject away from what we had been discussing and then got mad when I pointed out how you were mistaken.

Because, despite your claims which you make even now, the spread of Christianity involved violence and bloodshed just like the spread of Islam did.

And, as I've also pointed out previously, you are talking about the SPREAD of Islam, not the ORIGIN of it. You seem determined to compare apples to oranges and hope that no one notices.O

I see you're still off attacking your strawman. Since I have made explicit that the means of spreading are a secondary detail to the argument I can only assume you're purposely distorting it now rather than misunderstanding. Unless you just have really, really poor reading comprehension. And at no point did I get mad, that's rather silly. I've simply pointed out that you seem to lack the intellectual honesty necessary for productive discussion.

 

[Kylie]

I see you're still off attacking your strawman. Since I have made explicit that the means of spreading are a secondary detail to the argument I can only assume you're purposely distorting it now rather than misunderstanding. Unless you just have really, really poor reading comprehension. And at no point did I get mad, that's rather silly. I've simply pointed out that you seem to lack the intellectual honesty necessary for productive discussion.

Okay, so the means of spreading are secondary.

Fine.

Please tell me where you said anything about Islam in our conversation that was NOT about how it was spread with a sword and violence.

 

[Fervent]

Okay, so the means of spreading are secondary.

Fine.

Please tell me where you said anything about Islam in our conversation that was NOT about how it was spread with a sword and violence.

Where I spoke of violence and Islam it was a description of the founder, as his penchant for violence and mastery of warfare fully explains how it became popular during his lifetime. So the contrast is between the central figures which leave one with an explanation and the other a difficulty.

 

[AveChristusRex]

*crickets*

 

[Kylie]

Where I spoke of violence and Islam it was a description of the founder, as his penchant for violence and mastery of warfare fully explains how it became popular during his lifetime. So the contrast is between the central figures which leave one with an explanation and the other a difficulty.

No, you don't seem to understand my point.

When you speak about Christianity, you talk about how the first guys got it.

When you speak about Islam, you speak about how the first guys spread it.

 

[Fervent]

No, you don't seem to understand my point.

When you speak about Christianity, you talk about how the first guys got it.

When you speak about Islam, you speak about how the first guys spread it.

In both cases it's about how the first guys came to it, as Muhammad's founding it can easily be explained by Muhammad's ambitions and the perpetuation of it by his willingness to accept converts under the threat of death(and if you are familiar at all with Muhammad's exploits there are multiple episodes of Muhammad personally giving people the option to convert to his religion or be beheaded). So both the initiation of the religion and its initial spread are easily explained by Muhammad's earthly ambitions.

On the other hand, it'd be a little harder for Jesus to have established the religion centered on Him and I've yet to encounter a naturalistic explanation that doesn't resort to pure speculation and ignoring key bits of historic evidence just because it is inconvenient to the naturalistic explanations. So as far as I can tell, so long as we don't beg the question and deny the possibility of the resurrection purely by fiat, the best explanation is a genuine resurrection event. So where the belief came from in the first place requires some sort of explanation, and that explanation must also explain why the people in the best position to know the truth were willing to endure suffering and death to maintain it, especially because the majority of the initial Jewish followers were expecting a military messiah who would violently overthrow the oppressive governments and re-establish a Jewish rule of Israel, all without any clear benefit to themselves. So it is both how the first guys got it and how they chose to spread it that are a question, especially since coercive conversions didn't happen until after Christianity gained legal status under Constantine.

 

[David Lamb]

*crickets*

Sorry, what do you mean?

 

[BCP1928]

Sorry, what do you mean?

A comment on the length of time Fervent's post went unanswered, celebrating the notion that it was such a wonderful argument that it stunned Kylie into silence, leaving only crickets to be heard. It's kind of a chatroom thing.

 

[David Lamb]

A comment on the length of time Fervent's post went unanswered, celebrating the notion that it was such a wonderful argument that it stunned Kylie into silence, leaving only crickets to be heard. It's kind of a chatroom thing.

Thanks for explaining.

 

[AveChristusRex]

From Mirriam Webster...

joke
noun
ˈjōk
Synonyms of joke
1
a
: something said or done to provoke laughter
especially : a brief oral narrative with a climactic humorous twist
b
(1)
: the humorous or ridiculous element in something
(2)
: an instance of jesting : kidding

Hmm :think: I believe I shall partake in this "jesting" you are referring to...

 

[AveChristusRex]

A comment on the length of time Fervent's post went unanswered, celebrating the notion that it was such a wonderful argument that it stunned Kylie into silence, leaving only crickets to be heard. It's kind of a chatroom thing.

No no, I was just commenting on the lack of response from anyone, not specifically denoting one side over the other

 

[Kylie]

In both cases it's about how the first guys came to it, as Muhammad's founding it can easily be explained by Muhammad's ambitions and the perpetuation of it by his willingness to accept converts under the threat of death(and if you are familiar at all with Muhammad's exploits there are multiple episodes of Muhammad personally giving people the option to convert to his religion or be beheaded). So both the initiation of the religion and its initial spread are easily explained by Muhammad's earthly ambitions.

On the other hand, it'd be a little harder for Jesus to have established the religion centered on Him and I've yet to encounter a naturalistic explanation that doesn't resort to pure speculation and ignoring key bits of historic evidence just because it is inconvenient to the naturalistic explanations. So as far as I can tell, so long as we don't beg the question and deny the possibility of the resurrection purely by fiat, the best explanation is a genuine resurrection event. So where the belief came from in the first place requires some sort of explanation, and that explanation must also explain why the people in the best position to know the truth were willing to endure suffering and death to maintain it, especially because the majority of the initial Jewish followers were expecting a military messiah who would violently overthrow the oppressive governments and re-establish a Jewish rule of Israel, all without any clear benefit to themselves. So it is both how the first guys got it and how they chose to spread it that are a question, especially since coercive conversions didn't happen until after Christianity gained legal status under Constantine.

Once again, Muhammad converting followers through threats of violence is NOT the same thing as how Muhammad first came to hold that faith in the first place.