FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.

Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Reload this Page Warlord theory of religion split from Quranic conceptions of Jesus
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM
Search

 
Page 5 of 10 « First 34 5 67 Last »
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-22-2012, 11:54 AM   #41
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
Default
It isn't totally absurd simply because the Muslim conquerors, like Christian ones, used forms of coercion and incentives for conversion as they conquered lands.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pamela Spencer View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotto voce View Post


The spread of Islam was characterised by violence.
The largest Muslim country in the world is Indonesia, comprising 17,508 islands (Population 240 million, 87% Muslim). Historically, the primary mode of Islamic proselytization/facilitation was via Sufi (mystic) merchants.

"History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated."

[De Lacy O'Leary, ISLAM AT THE CROSSROADS, London, 1923, p. 8.]
Duvduv is offline  
Old 02-22-2012, 12:12 PM   #42
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 3,057
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post
It isn't totally absurd simply because the Muslim conquerors, like Christian ones, used forms of coercion and incentives for conversion as they conquered lands.
That's what's so neat about being a Christian. As long as the government says you're a Christian, you're a Christian. It's in the Bible, that.
sotto voce is offline  
Old 02-22-2012, 12:23 PM   #43
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Northeastern USA
Posts: 241
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotto voce View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post
It isn't totally absurd simply because the Muslim conquerors, like Christian ones, used forms of coercion and incentives for conversion as they conquered lands.
That's what's so neat about being a Christian. As long as the government says you're a Christian, you're a Christian. It's in the Bible, that.
The Bible does not recognize the word, "Christian".
Pamela Spencer is offline  
Old 02-22-2012, 12:26 PM   #44
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 3,057
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pamela Spencer View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotto voce View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post
It isn't totally absurd simply because the Muslim conquerors, like Christian ones, used forms of coercion and incentives for conversion as they conquered lands.
That's what's so neat about being a Christian. As long as the government says you're a Christian, you're a Christian. It's in the Bible, that.
The Bible does not recognize the word, "Christian".
So why are we talking about Christianity in Biblical Criticism & History?
sotto voce is offline  
Old 02-22-2012, 12:38 PM   #45
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Northeastern USA
Posts: 241
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post
It isn't totally absurd simply because the Muslim conquerors, like Christian ones, used forms of coercion and incentives for conversion as they conquered lands.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pamela Spencer View Post

The largest Muslim country in the world is Indonesia, comprising 17,508 islands (Population 240 million, 87% Muslim). Historically, the primary mode of Islamic proselytization/facilitation was via Sufi (mystic) merchants.

"History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated."

[De Lacy O'Leary, ISLAM AT THE CROSSROADS, London, 1923, p. 8.]
It isn't completely absurd, but the statement also serves to obfuscate the complete picture; some of the largest, most populous and influential Muslim nations in the world have had a dearth of forced historical conquest, but rather, accepted a state of Islam via diffusion of ideas (e.g via trade routes) often expedited by technological breakthroughs. Robert Wright would probably argue that the dynamic relationship that has existed between "the West" and "the Islamic World" was more or less based on non-zero sum approximation.
Pamela Spencer is offline  
Old 02-22-2012, 12:39 PM   #46
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 3,057
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pamela Spencer View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post
It isn't totally absurd simply because the Muslim conquerors, like Christian ones, used forms of coercion and incentives for conversion as they conquered lands.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pamela Spencer View Post

The largest Muslim country in the world is Indonesia, comprising 17,508 islands (Population 240 million, 87% Muslim). Historically, the primary mode of Islamic proselytization/facilitation was via Sufi (mystic) merchants.

"History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated."

[De Lacy O'Leary, ISLAM AT THE CROSSROADS, London, 1923, p. 8.]
It isn't completely absurd, but the statement also serves to obfuscate the complete picture; some of the largest, most populous and influential Muslim nations in the world have had a dearth of forced historical conquest, but rather, accepted a state of Islam via diffusion of ideas (e.g via trade routes) often expedited by technological breakthroughs. Robert Wright would probably argue that the dynamic relationship that has existed between "the West" and "the Islamic World" was more or less based on non-zero sum approximation.
That totally ignores the means of establishment of Islam.
sotto voce is offline  
Old 02-22-2012, 12:40 PM   #47
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Northeastern USA
Posts: 241
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotto voce View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pamela Spencer View Post

The Bible does not recognize the word, "Christian".
So why are we talking about Christianity in Biblical Criticism & History?
Red herring.

You've stated "As long as the government says you're a Christian, you're a Christian. It's in the Bible, that".

Can you defend your statement, based on the Bible?
Pamela Spencer is offline  
Old 02-22-2012, 12:46 PM   #48
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 3,057
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pamela Spencer View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotto voce View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pamela Spencer View Post

The Bible does not recognize the word, "Christian".
So why are we talking about Christianity in Biblical Criticism & History?
Red herring.
I suppose it would be. Nobody should be talking about Christianity in BC&H if the Bible does not recognize the word, "Christian".
sotto voce is offline  
Old 02-22-2012, 12:48 PM   #49
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default
I suspect that sotto voce was being sarcastic or ironic. The Bible says nothing of the sort, as we all know.
Toto is offline  
Old 02-22-2012, 12:51 PM   #50
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 3,057
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
I suspect that sotto voce was being sarcastic or ironic. The Bible says nothing of the sort, as we all know.
If we all know it, we ignore it.
sotto voce is offline  
 
Page 5 of 10 « First 34 5 67 Last »

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:50 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.