cavarka9 wrote:

nunnington wrote:I suppose they are paranoid; but more important, they are consumed by a lust for territory, minerals, cash, influence, etc. Do we think Russia just likes the air on the Syrian coast, or that the US just likes Jews?

no no, they are paranoid, hence looking for control of resources and territory, strange thing is, the more they have, the more they have a reason to be paranoid about, bout losing it all. hey nunnigton, could you say abt your contemplative practice in another thread?.

So you are saying (switching historical areas now) that the English cut off the king's head because they were paranoid? Why did they become paranoid then?

Which thread? I might say a small amount - minimalism rules! Those who speak, do not know.

nunnington wrote:

cavarka9 wrote:

nunnington wrote:I suppose they are paranoid; but more important, they are consumed by a lust for territory, minerals, cash, influence, etc. Do we think Russia just likes the air on the Syrian coast, or that the US just likes Jews?

no no, they are paranoid, hence looking for control of resources and territory, strange thing is, the more they have, the more they have a reason to be paranoid about, bout losing it all. hey nunnigton, could you say abt your contemplative practice in another thread?.

So you are saying (switching historical areas now) that the English cut off the king's head because they were paranoid? Why did they become paranoid then?

Which thread? I might say a small amount - minimalism rules! Those who speak, do not know.

I had in mind something more general like nations employing Machiavellian advisers .ofcourse
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... 41704.html

jamest wrote:

Scar wrote:Now that that's solved, let me ask:
Why did so many people buy into the stupid crap that crackpot from Nazareth said?

He bent a few spoons, of course.

Not to change topics too drastically, but you do realize your premises in this thread shoot your argument for the historicity of Jesus' resurrection in the foot. Or dead between the eyes, more accurately.

wonder if Gengis Khan took a leaf from Mo's book. By tackling small weaker tribes and forcing them to join or die his army grew at a rate of knots, those supplicants soon realised they actually possessed power like they never had; the movement snowballed as new 'enemies' saw a chance to live, but maintain pride.

The prophet part of Mo's plan may not have been opened up to anyone for a very long time, perhaps not until he was about to die.

jamest wrote:Was 'Mo' actively engaged in creating an army and forcing people to believe what he said?

This also does not make sense to me. As I understand it there was a huge amount of squabbling immediately after his death, and militarily did he do much if anything himself? As I understand it, not a good basis for conquering!

I wonder if we are actually looking at a major rewrite of history later?

Maybe there were successful arab leaders, like those defeated at Poitiers, but they weren't actually Muslim at that point? That is a later rewrite of history.

Igor, don't forget Persia and Zarathustra! See Tom Holland Sword in the Sand

Are we looking at the invention of the text as war creating machine? Is a history of propaganda needed?

Islam could have appealed to the people of time ahead of Christianity or Judaism for a variety of reasons. Maybe Christianity didn't offer quite enough by way of "How to gain control over women and other slaves". Or maybe it was the novelty of the whole thing - Christianity was already kind of old and boring, and referred to the teachings of a long dead guy, as opposed to the brand new, living messiah that Islam offered. It doesn't really take too much to start a new religion with popular appeal. You just need to press the right buttons.

You're talking as though a new major religion emerges every other week. The fact is that there's not that many of them, and a 'major religion' hasn't emerged within the last 1000 years afaik.

jamest wrote:You're talking as though a new major religion emerges every other week. The fact is that there's not that many of them, and a 'major religion' hasn't emerged within the last 1000 years afaik.

Not since the establishment of free education to basic literacy standard as a desirable human right on most of the planet.

Blackadder wrote:

jamest wrote:You're talking as though a new major religion emerges every other week. The fact is that there's not that many of them, and a 'major religion' hasn't emerged within the last 1000 years afaik.

Not since the establishment of free education to basic literacy standard as a desirable human right on most of the planet.

That's only been in the last century, for most.

jamest wrote:You're talking as though a new major religion emerges every other week. The fact is that there's not that many of them, and a 'major religion' hasn't emerged within the last 1000 years afaik.

What do you call a "major religion"? Quite a few new religions have appeared in the last 1000 years. Sikhism is a prominent example, even if you want to discount Mormonism, Scientology,Wicca etc.

I literally doubt that, perhaps that could be the case in pre literate societies, but not so in literate ones. I think the jizya tax was the back breaker to non muslims, also the humiliation,fear.

I can't figure out exactly what you are doubting could not occur in literate societies, are you talking about military conquest and subsequent influence? I agree with you regarding things like the tax, humiliation and fear part, that is what I meant by influences beyond direct conquering and being forced to convert. As an ex-Muslim in the US, I can tell you many of those pressures (not tax off course) still exist.

There was no equality back then, we are using the present day ideas which come from last 2-3 centuries at most. I mean some of the greatest figures in the past believed there was nothing wrong with slavery. Not to mention slavery was accepted in islam towards non muslims.

I don't think you can see equality as all or nothing, because than even now we would have to say there is no equality (unless any of us is under the illusion that are treat people equally in modern societies). Islam offered many positive things to the very bottom groups of society at that time, which from our modern perspective are atrocious and violations of human rights but back than, it was a step towards better equality from previous non-islam societies in that region.

It really comes down to whether or not you have arms or not. In India, although the hindus had caste structure which was immoral, there was the class of warriors, who of course were always important, whenever muslim kings fought with each other. Having military is there fore a pre requisite as to ensure that one shall be able to defend ones views. If every non-muslim country around the world abandoned military in its entirety, then 200 yrs from now things would in my opinion be very different, there would be no free speech in most of the world.In almost every other place Islam went to, there was either no literature or people did not have soldiers to give them leverage.

I would agree that military backing is to some extent very helpful and probably close to necessary but not absolutely necessary. Islam itself started off without any military but later gained one due to attacks, which later became a way to conquer. I also want to make the distinction between what the islamic principles say about forcing conversions (There is no compulsion in religion) versus what muslims ended up doing. When I argue with Muslims, I always point out the fact that their religion may endorse the idea of no compulsion but they seem to think of it in a very limited sense of "I have a gun to your head, convert or die" and conveniently leave out the thousand shades of more nuanced coercion (some that you mentioned, tax, shame, guilt, group identity, tradition, family ties).

iamthereforeithink wrote:

jamest wrote:You're talking as though a new major religion emerges every other week. The fact is that there's not that many of them, and a 'major religion' hasn't emerged within the last 1000 years afaik.

What do you call a "major religion"? Quite a few new religions have appeared in the last 1000 years. Sikhism is a prominent example, even if you want to discount Mormonism, Scientology,Wicca etc.

Okay, I'll give you Sikhism. I didn't realise it was such a young religion. Mormons are essentially Xians. Afaict, scientologists are essentially psychologists. Wiccanism seems like a resurgence of ancient pagan beliefs. In any case, their limited popularity doesn't warrant them being called a major religion, I think.

Anyway, the bottom-line is that it's not that easy to start a major religion. In fact, it's very difficult.

Imza wrote:

I literally doubt that, perhaps that could be the case in pre literate societies, but not so in literate ones. I think the jizya tax was the back breaker to non muslims, also the humiliation,fear.

I can't figure out exactly what you are doubting could not occur in literate societies, are you talking about military conquest and subsequent influence? I agree with you regarding things like the tax, humiliation and fear part, that is what I meant by influences beyond direct conquering and being forced to convert. As an ex-Muslim in the US, I can tell you many of those pressures (not tax off course) still exist.

There was no equality back then, we are using the present day ideas which come from last 2-3 centuries at most. I mean some of the greatest figures in the past believed there was nothing wrong with slavery. Not to mention slavery was accepted in islam towards non muslims.

I don't think you can see equality as all or nothing, because than even now we would have to say there is no equality (unless any of us is under the illusion that are treat people equally in modern societies). Islam offered many positive things to the very bottom groups of society at that time, which from our modern perspective are atrocious and violations of human rights but back than, it was a step towards better equality from previous non-islam societies in that region.

It really comes down to whether or not you have arms or not. In India, although the hindus had caste structure which was immoral, there was the class of warriors, who of course were always important, whenever muslim kings fought with each other. Having military is there fore a pre requisite as to ensure that one shall be able to defend ones views. If every non-muslim country around the world abandoned military in its entirety, then 200 yrs from now things would in my opinion be very different, there would be no free speech in most of the world.In almost every other place Islam went to, there was either no literature or people did not have soldiers to give them leverage.

I would agree that military backing is to some extent very helpful and probably close to necessary but not absolutely necessary. Islam itself started off without any military but later gained one due to attacks, which later became a way to conquer. I also want to make the distinction between what the islamic principles say about forcing conversions (There is no compulsion in religion) versus what muslims ended up doing. When I argue with Muslims, I always point out the fact that their religion may endorse the idea of no compulsion but they seem to think of it in a very limited sense of "I have a gun to your head, convert or die" and conveniently leave out the thousand shades of more nuanced coercion (some that you mentioned, tax, shame, guilt, group identity, tradition, family ties).

there is no equality now, but in terms of principles, we do have equality now. I am not sure, If the reasoning for doing things is not proper and is only selectively partial, does it mean equality?. Second, is on the issue of military conquest and (no compulsion in religion), see that simply doesnt work as you say it yourself because when you belong to a missionary religion, you cant practice ensuring no compulsion in religion because to not convert others is immoral because they are going to hell, their children are going to hell as well.You are allowing others to go to hell by not compelling them. The worst part of religion is that it uses good moral sense to get people to do wicked things.

there is no equality now, but in terms of principles, we do have equality now. I am not sure, If the reasoning for doing things is not proper and is only selectively partial, does it mean equality?

Well I would argue that we even in principle don't have equality or better way to put it is, my reasoning about equality may differ from your reasoning on equality. I don't think there is a consensus even though I will concede that we have gotten to a much broader and more agreed upon conception of equality. Islam provided a sense of equality in terms of various social/economic factors as well as per value (all are equal in front of God). This is very limited and not something any serious thinker would consider a good sense of equality now a days but it was a step up from pre-islamic arabian cultures where women were equal to domesticated animals in many cases, racism was rampant, etc. Off course in other areas Islam took away equality (equality of freedom of religion).

Second, is on the issue of military conquest and (no compulsion in religion), see that simply doesnt work as you say it yourself because when you belong to a missionary religion, you cant practice ensuring no compulsion in religion because to not convert others is immoral because they are going to hell, their children are going to hell as well.You are allowing others to go to hell by not compelling them. The worst part of religion is that it uses good moral sense to get people to do wicked things.

Not converting people is not immoral in Islam and that is what I'm trying to get at. The only responsibility of Muslims is to spread the teachings, as in here is Quran, read it but nothing beyond that. And even this is not "required" in any strict sense. As for the part about going to hell, Islam also allows for non-Muslims to not go to hell and even make it to heaven if your just a good person but never heard of Islam so again, there is no overriding missionary goal.

This is not to say that people didn't use the reasoning like the one you mentioned to politically gather support for their own military expansions, in fact many early Muslim conquests were justified by the fact that people would not let the Quran to be spread in foreign regions or Muslims living in those areas were not given rights to practice freely. I would probably argue the actual reasons were imperialistic and greed and religious justifications were used to political ends. However, I think these fall into some type mixture of religions/non-religious motivations and I think strictly speaking, it's against Islam to do such things (Something I wish more Muslims actually knew about back than and even now who think their sole purpose is to take over the world).

Scar wrote:Why did so many people buy into the stupid crap that crackpot from Nazareth said?

Many? Constantine and Theodosius were sufficient.