I agree. The Lurkers should see when someone is again and again refusing to answer a direct question:

So let's ask again, since Nomad has hinted again and again throughout this thread:

Is, or is not, Xtianity's rise accounted for by mundane reasons listed throughout this thread, or is there some special divine unnatural thing about it?

Michael

Congratulations, Blackadder. I see you've met EgoNomad.

Yea, someone who really knows what he's talking about can often be fored into a situation where he sounds like that when a buch of ignroant sophemoric types are distoriting the evidence refuse to debate fairly and draw contantly erronenouos conclusions from the data.

[H2]NoMad had blowen you guys away because basically he has an histoircally illiterate oppossition to debate![/H2]

[quote]<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by turtonm:

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman: Actually, I think the most absurd statement made was yours that Christians worship Satan. Independent observers establish the truth of something? That sounds like multiple attestation. Gosh, you're still smarting from that, aren't you? That's the second time today you've referred to it. As for bailing, this is Nomad's horse and he has raced it well. Nomad has been crushed, flatten, baked, laminated and posted on the wall at the SecWeb in this thread. So far he has made no positive assertions that were not decisively refuted (I'm still laughing about the recent entry of Christianity to India), and he has consistently avoided posting any argument, theory, or hypothesis regarding Xtian spread in Europe/World.

Meta =&gt; You joking!? Surely? You guys have said nothing. All you know how to do is contradict the consensus among historians and show how little you've read of the actual material and how much you have read about China which hasn nothing to do with anything.


It's not a matter of some amazing supernatural causation. That's a straw man argument. the point of the therad is that you don't take the historical evidence seriously and you don't. Here is what you do instead.

1) argue from silence.

2) fill in gaps in knolwedge with assertions that you take as totally proven becasue they are your assertions

3) Refuse to look at the evidence

4) draw the most illogical assumptions from the evidence and than when people don't agree with you try to imply that they don't know anything and make little pardoys of the way they write.

Why should there be some big amazing superantuarl styple facit to the rise of Christanity? I don't think it's origins are toally accounted for by natrual ordinary historical means, there are numerous unexplained aspects, but why should the be the critiera for deciding the truth of it?

The real problem is that there are no ground rules in any of these disucssions. We are arguing with a theologically illiterate oppostion and it's impossible to get any real discussion going because no one knows what the basics of regligion are or what they are suppossed to do. Than means that when it comes to interpriting the text there is no standard hereneutical method employed, it's all assertion and whatever I (meaning you) want to take for given.

Toto

ALL YOUR MESSAGE BOARD DEBATE ARE BELONG TO US

Sheesh.

QUOTE]Originally posted by Metacrock:
Why should there be some big amazing superantuarl styple facit to the rise of Christanity? I don't think it's origins are toally accounted for by natrual ordinary historical means, there are numerous unexplained aspects, but why should the be the critiera for deciding the truth of it?

The real problem is that there are no ground rules in any of these disucssions. We are arguing with a theologically illiterate oppostion and it's impossible to get any real discussion going because no one knows what the basics of regligion are or what they are suppossed to do. Than means that when it comes to interpriting the text there is no standard hereneutical method employed, it's all assertion and whatever I (meaning you) want to take for given.[/QUOTE]

Metacrock, you need to do actually read what Nomad says. If you can point out some serious flaws in our responses, then that is fine. Otherwise, simply asserting that Nomad is right, labeling us idiots and leaving won't cut it. Nomad has already done that.

Can you point out some serious problems with anything any one of us said.

We weren't discussing the period 30-60, but the period from the first century to about the ninth, when Christianity spread itself over the Roman Empire and then over Europe.
The discussion was about history, not theology, so I don't see what theological literacy has to do with it.

Why do you think Christianity succeeded largely without the benefit of state support and conquoring armies?....I like the idea that it is more plausible to accept Christianity.....isn't this at least a little odd to the average atheist out there?

Why should there be some big amazing superantuarl styple facit to the rise of Christanity?

Since Nomad said the things I italicized above, hinting that there was something special about Christianity, I pressed him to clarify. None of us non-theists ever claimed there was anything supernatural about it.

Michael

You are complaining about illiteracy? Give me a break. The grammar in that attempted sentence would make a first-grade English teacher cry.

And I still haven't figured out what on Earth Nomad's point is. I'm not trying to be insulting but as far as I can tell he simply posted an article. Which he then claimed to not fully support.

So what do you support from that article, Nomad?

Hi MB

Talk about a thread I would have thought the sceptics would have wanted to remain buried!

The main point made by Robson that I found most interesting and true (at least so far as my experience with many sceptics I have met on discussion boards goes) is that most people don't really know very much about history, nor do they even know that they do not know very much about history.

This particular thread became especially instructive for me, as we descended deeper and deeper into the sureal, until a couple of the regular sceptics on these boards asserted that Christians worshipped Satan, or at least thought of him as the supreme being. At this point I recognized that these individuals were not interested in a serious discussion. The fact that they refused to withdraw their ridiculous assertions told me that it was time "bail" as Michael put it.

For the record, I certainly never claimed that Christianity's success was supernatually inspired. I did say that it was historically unique, and wanted to help the sceptics better understand the unique nature of its success. As usual, with those that post here, none gave an inch, and having dug in, tended to dig in very deep indeed. In the meantime, for those that are less committed than these individuals to their specific faith, and especially their man-the -ramparts-and-never-conceed-an-inch mentality, that they saw Robson's point demonstrated very clearly.

I must admit, it was a fun thread.

Peace,

Nomad

[This message has been edited by Nomad (edited April 27, 2001).]

Nomad,

As a long time lurker, first time writer I have to say this. I do not find your arguments convincing.

I prefer to lurk. It is safer, and I'm still building the knowledge necessary to engage in debates on this forum. I never realised I needed to know so much! This is more work than gaining my University degree!

So when I say, Nomad, that I find your arguments to be unconvincing, it may well be that the reason I say so is my ignorance.

Nonetheless, having studied both sides of this particular debate, and having checked all the links posted, I have to say, Nomad that thus far you do not impress. The only reason I have contributed to this thread is that you specifically referenced us lurkers.

In short, my friend, thus far you lose.

Originally posted by Nomad:
Hi MB

Talk about a thread I would have thought the sceptics would have wanted to remain buried!

Why? As we saw, you fled from the thread, all of Robson's points were trashed, and you made of fool of yourself demonstrating your ignorance of your own religion's history.

The main point made by Robson that I found most interesting and true (at least so far as my experience with many sceptics I have met on discussion boards goes) is that most people don't really know very much about history, nor do they even know that they do not know very much about history.

For example, like not knowing that a European royal house still traces its ancestry back to pagan gods, that Christianity arrived in India and China centuries ago.....oh, but those were your errors, weren't they?

This particular thread became especially instructive for me, as we descended deeper and deeper into the sureal, until a couple of the regular sceptics on these boards asserted that Christians worshipped Satan, or at least thought of him as the supreme being. At this point I recognized that these individuals were not interested in a serious discussion. The fact that they refused to withdraw their ridiculous assertions told me that it was time "bail" as Michael put it.

Yes, it did give you a good excuse to run away after 40 posts attempting to get you to explain what, if any point you had.

For the record, I certainly never claimed that Christianity's success was supernatually inspired. I did say that it was historically unique, and wanted to help the sceptics better understand the unique nature of its success.

You mean, after 40 posts of being asked, you're finally getting around to telling us this?

Unfortunately, there is nothing so incredibly unique about it. Please post what you feel is more than trivially unique about Christianity's success, and we'll be happy to discuss it.

As usual, with those that post here, none gave an inch, and having dug in, tended to dig in very deep indeed. In the meantime, for those that are less committed than these individuals to their specific faith, and especially their man-the -ramparts-and-never-conceed-an-inch mentality, that they saw Robson's point demonstrated very clearly.

I must admit, it was a fun thread.



Michael

[This message has been edited by turtonm (edited April 27, 2001).]