Decided by a panel of one.

Make that two. Nomad hasn't made a clear point anywhere in this thread that hasn't been strongly refuted.

Cheers,

-Kelly

I'm not sure a SebWeb "Regular" counts as a lurker. But your opinion is duly noticed. For whatever it is worth.

Ha, I'm a regular too, who has participated directly with both Rodahi and Turtonm, so I guess my opinion probably isn't valid. So I won't give it . But I can't believe you two are still asserting the supremacy of Satan and Angels?? Besides Michael you never answered my latest prescriptive definition of God several weeks ago. I think it was just because you probably didn't see it, and I left it alone. But since I saw it in this one, I just couldn't help myself .............
-Shaun

P.S. After having read the whole thread from the git go, I have this to say. The assertion of Christianity's monotheism made it unique in that it required those of the native culture to renounce all other divinity claims, whether god-kings or other Gods. Your defense was that Christianity is Polytheistic. Using your definition it is obvious that there are NO Monotheistic religions which makes the defense meaningless. Also even if it was polytheistic it claimed that 3 Persons(I'll allow that for my point)were the ONLY beings to be worshipped. To the exclusion of all others. Although I think that because Christianity claim that this is actually one being allows it to remain a monotheism...
-Shaun




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

Toto

If Nomad and Layman think that this thread reflects well on Nomad's arguments, I'd like to know what they're smoking (metaphorically, of course. I'm sure good Christian gentlemen don't do drugs.)

If you think that our attack on Nomad/Robson was "Christianity is polytheistic" rather than references to actual history, you have sadly misread this thread.

Michael

Nope, Michael, I think ONE of your attacks was that it was not special because it did not require any special foregoing of previous deities by the 'converted' countries BECAUSE it was polytheistic.

-Shaun

No Shaun, you HAVE misread it. Go back and check that.

• N:Christianity is monotheistic.
  
  T:No, Christianity is polytheistic. It worships a triune god, Satan, and lesser powers such as angels and saints.

Did any argument relevant to the thread flow from this? No. We all got sidetracked.

Nomad put up Robson, we then showed that nearly all of Robson's claims were wrong. Using history. Robson was sunk by the 35th-40th post or so, the whole tangential thing about polytheism broke out at a later point.

Michael

Let me re-phrase. Nomad or Layman (not sure which) attempted to show the uniqueness of Christianity's success in that it converted countries in spite of its 'intolerance'. This was not a factor Buddhism had to deal with. That's all. I think also in light of the fact that it DID convert kings who were given divine status was somewhat of an unnatural thing as well. After reading the thread yet again, I too would actually like to know the sources for your list of countries whose conversions were top-bottom. My curiosity, not my desire to argue. Thanks...
-Shaun

I did the simple thing. I went over to Ency. Brit., and looked. They have extensive entries on medieval society. Then I double-checked where I felt more detail was needed. Obviously there is no completely clean "top-down" conversion, since there were missionaries operating simultaneously, and lay believers carried their beliefs with them, an important factor in the spread of many religions. The requirements of space prevented deep presentation of what is obviously a complex, though entirely mundane, process. Still, the turning point in most of these is generally regarded as the conversion of some potentate, though that may just reflect the "potentate orientation" of most conventional history.

Obviously Buddhism is not the only possible comparison to Christianity, I also pointed to Hinduism, and of course there is Islam. Not all of the spread of Islam was by force.

That's all, no real mystery source for me.

Michael